Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Arnold's Redistricting Plan is a Disaster for Democrats Nationwide (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It'd be great (4.00)
    If we could have non-political redistricting nationwide.  But, if we only do "fair" redistricting in some states, while the GOP'ers gerrymander the shit out of places like Texas, we're losers (in more ways than one).
    •  Yup, that's the problem (none)
      I wish state legislators from different states would call each other up and hash out agreements.  If California and Texas both switched to non-partisan redistricting, it might not change the overall makeup of Congress, and we'd all be better off.  But it'll never happen.  
      •  Which begs the question... (none)
        ...what exactly is "fair" redistricting?  I've been trying to come up with a good definition of this for quite some time, and it's somewhat elusive.  What's your definition of "fair"?
        •  Fair redistricting (none)
          My definition of fair redistricting would be districts defined without any regard to politics.  The only way to pull that off would be for redistricting to be done entirely by a computer program, and the inputs would only indicate where voters lived, not how they vote.

          Presumably one of the criteria that the computer would consider would be the "compactness" of districts, which I see you've criticized as always detrimental to Democrats.  I'm not sure why that's true, though--maybe I'm missing something.  It seems to me that it would sometimes help Democrats and sometimes hurt them.

          I'd also love it if we could have districts that crossed state lines, so that small states didn't get more representation in the House than they deserve.  But that's just a pipe dream.

          •  Other factors (none)
            I'm not sure a computer program could take in all of the nuances of redistricting.

            How could it ensure that geographic communities of interests weren't diversified into so many districts that they didn't have a voice?

            Ditto for minority voting groups.

        •  I did my senior thesis on these issues (none)
          It was never the Founders' intent that representatives cover single-interest districts, but, rather, the understanding of "representation" at the time was that each representative would cover a district with diverse interests and act as a sieve to filter through constituents' views and figure out what's best for the whole.

          That said, I absolutely agree on the main point: do it nationally, or not at all.

          Patrick Murphy for Congress (PA-8) --

          by Adam B on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it should be (none)
      done nationwide or not at all.  None of this cherry-picking states to redistrict.  Seems like it would violate some part of the "one man, one vote" notion.

      And ditto Maine and Nebraska's EV distribution.  Though they've never split them up, it's unfair that every state but those two are winner-take-all.

      Visit and follow every 2006 Senate race.

      by AnthonySF on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 09:15:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site