georgewebb
Heisman
Posts: 9,602
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:
|
RE: Gerrymandering reform
Two ways to reduce gerrymandering would be to (1) require districts to be tied to existing fixed boundaries, such as county lines; and (2) create a long time lag (e.g. 50 years) between when new districts are drawn and when they go into effect. These changes would also result in districts that are unequal in population, but so what? Strict populational equality seems highly overrated.
|
|
04-04-2019 04:54 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,778
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3208
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Gerrymandering reform
(04-04-2019 04:08 PM)illiniowl Wrote: (04-04-2019 07:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: Maybe I'm completely misreading this article or the point the author is trying to make:
"My biggest worry is that, six months from now, we’ll get a decision that lets the gerrymandered maps stand, on the utterly irrelevant grounds that voters don’t have a constitutional right to proportional representation."
The article appears in a Left leaning (according to Allsides.com) publication, Slate.
Why would a left leaning publication be (indirectly) advocating for proportional representation?
(Which party is the largest proportionally across the US?)
Well, the author claims not to be advocating for proportional representation (PR) per se; witness his defense of Massachusetts's 100% Democratic congressional delegation despite a voting populace of 65% D, 35% R.
As for which side is more likely to think it would stand to gain from a PR-type system, I'm guessing that would be Democrats, if for no other reason than that Republicans currently control more state legislatures (and thus have more control over the mapping process) than they do.
Based on some analyses I've seen (which, I'm sorry I can't cite right now but will look for) over the historic long haul, republicans would benefit more. Republicans have tended over time to fare worse under "first past the post" than they would under proportional representation. The Massachusetts example you cite is instructive, although right now the pendulum seems to have swung a bit the other way.
One thing that proportional representation would do is give people who support minority parties (like republicans in Massachusetts or California) a congressional representative from their side of the aisle.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2019 08:22 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
|
|
04-04-2019 08:19 PM |
|