Skip to main content

View Diary: First, kill all the 'gerrymander-ers' (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Other countries have managed it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz

    So has a number of states in the union.

    •  So you're willing to give up Dem seats? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz

      What you're saying is that you're willing to give up Democratic seats in Congress in order to support this notion that you can take the politics out of politics. Personally, I'd rather have a bigger majority in Congress. It will be a real problem when Republican states are gerrymandering to maximize their seats but Democratic states aren't. That won't get us a Dem majority.

      •  A couple of responses (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian Reifowitz

        1) California voters put in a nonpartisan redistricting plan over the objections of Democratic party poohbahs who had the same objections you do. The result: With nonpartisan districting Dems GAINED five House seats. Glad we didn't listen to the party hacks.

        Gerrymandering is an incumbent protection racket. That's why even minority party incumbents don't complain about.  Their jobs stay safe. But in a fair fight Democrats did better in California than when they tried to rig the results. Go figure.

        2) Democrats gaining seats by giving up gerrymandering isn't going to happen everywhere.

        To avoid the unilateral disarmament that you and Ian rightfully worry about there doesn't have to be a national plan. States can pair themselves with equally sized states that vote for the opposite party. Heavily Republican gerrymandered Ohio with 16 seats would agree to go nonpartisan when Democratic Illinois with 18 seats does. New York and Massachusetts have as many seats together as Texas does on its own. They could pass legislation to go nonpartisan when all of them do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site