This would be the best thing to happen to U.S. politics in 100 years...

Terminate the gerrymander
Jeff Jacoby

February 21, 2005

The deepest and unhealthiest divide in American politics is not the one that separates Republicans from Democrats or conservatives from liberals. It is the gulf between Insiders and Outsiders -- between the incumbents who treat public office as private property and the increasingly neutered electorate in whose name they claim to act. You may have learned in ninth-grade civics class that lawmakers are the people's servants, temporarily entrusted with power that the people can take back at any time. But ninth grade is light-years away from the reality of Congress and the statehouses today, where many legislators regard their positions as lifetime entitlements that voters must not be allowed to tamper with.

The incumbent-protection racket takes many forms, from high ballot-access hurdles to onerous campaign-finance rules. But nothing does more to turn elections into shams than gerrymandering -- mapping congressional and legislative districts so that they become wholly-owned subsidiaries of one political party.

Gerrymanders are sometimes used to suppress partisan minorities. At other times, both parties collude, as California lawmakers did in 2001. That was the year, the Los Angeles Times recalled last week, that “Democrats and Republicans struck an agreement ensuring that whichever party represented a district at the time would get or keep a registration advantage. The sweetheart deal worked better than the drafters had expected. In 2002, only three legislative seats changed parties. Last November, not one of the 153 congressional and legislative seats on the ballot switched from 'R' to 'D' or vice versa.”

That, says Alan Heslop, an expert on redistricting at Claremont McKenna College, was “surely the most complete and effective bipartisan gerrymander in American history."

The US Supreme Court declined last year to strike down a biased congressional redistricting plan in Pennsylvania, refusing to involve itself in a purely partisan dispute. But though he joined the 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy was blunt about the stakes. “It is unfortunate," he wrote, "that our legislators have reached the point of declaring that, when it comes to apportionment, ‘We are in the business of rigging elections.’ "

Arnold Schwarzenegger agrees. Unlike the Supreme Court, the charismatic California governor intends to do something about it. He has launched a full-scale attack on redistricting abuse in his state, demanding that the power to draw election maps be taken from the legislature and turned over to a committee of retired judges. Legislators hate the idea, but they know that Schwarzenegger can go over their heads. People’s Advocate, the organization that spearheaded the effort to recall former Governor Gray Davis in 2003, has already begun collecting the 600,000 names on petitions it would take to bypass the legislature and submit a redistricting initiative directly to the voters.

Democrats were quick to blast Schwarzenegger, of course. The governor's bid to get the current districts replaced with honest ones in time for next year's election, fumed Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, "has the smell" of "a political power grab by the party that's not in power." But Republicans are no happier -- 16 of California's 20 Republican congressmen oppose Schwarzenegger's plan. The beauty of redistricting reform is that there is nothing partisan about it. It doesn't empower Rs at the expense of Ds, or Ds at the expense of Rs. It empowers voters at the expense of politicians.

Political trends often start in California, but this time the Golden State joins a crusade already in progress. Several states, including Iowa, Idaho, Arizona, and Alaska, have done away with partisan gerrymandering. Campaigns to follow suit are heating up in half a dozen others.

Including Massachusestts. More than 190 years after the term "gerrymander" was coined here in 1812, the watchdog group Common Cause is proposing an amendment to the state constitution that would do away with gerrymandering forever. The measure would make redistricting the job of an independent commission, which would not be allowed to take party registration or voting history into account. When Common Cause tested its proposal as a nonbinding ballot question in 15 state representative districts last fall, it passed handily in each one.

"Massachusetts elections are among the most uncompetitive anywhere," says Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. "Redistricting has always taken place behind closed doors, with zero public input." As a result, freewheeling elections are as rare in Massachusetts as they are in California. No member of the Bay State's congressional delegation has been defeated since 1996, for example. No member of the state Senate has lost a race since 1994.

An end to gerrymandering would be an extraordinary shot in the arm for American democracy, once again making legislative races exciting and responsive. This is the very best kind of government reform -- the kind that can unite conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. No, honest redistricting won't turn real-life politics into a ninth grade civics class. But it will make it a lot more interesting and democratic than the farce we're stuck with now.

Sadly you will never get rid of Gerrymandering. It happened in my local county a few years back. They organised the boundaries so that the Conservative candidate would win a certain area. It did not work. Margaret Thatcher has ensured that Conservatives are an endangered species in Scotland. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Sadly you will never get rid of Gerrymandering. It happened in my local county a few years back. They organised the boundaries so that the Conservative candidate would win a certain area. It did not work. Margaret Thatcher has ensured that Conservatives are an endangered species in Scotland. :)

---

It does seem a bit of a pipe-dream, Boab, but I refuse to shit-can any good idea; these are strange days, after all. ;)

I tend to agree, Both parties have benefitted from this "questionable" practice. But then i believe that the entire system could do with an overhaul.

what happened 100 years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

what happened 100 years ago?

---

I didn't think J2 would be one to support the founding of the IWW
:unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

what happened 100 years ago?

---

No-earlier:

To gerrymander is to divide an area into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. In short, gerrymandering is designing a district to fit a voting pattern.

The word gerrymander is a portmanteau from the name of Elbridge Gerry and salamander. Gerry was the governor of Massachusetts when he signed a bill in 1812 to redraw the district boundaries to favor the Democrats and weaken the Federalists, who had better numbers at the voting booth. The shape of the district he formed was likened in appearance to a salamander, and political cartoonists emphasized that appearance to denigrate the Democrats. Gerry did not sponsor the bill in question and was said to have signed it reluctantly, but his name has gone into history as that of a villain.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that extreme examples of gerrymandering--in the case they looked at, an election district was literally one road wide at one point, as the district meandered around to try to grab voters from another area--are unconstitutional, but what is allowed is still an open question.

I said it would be the best thing to happen in 100 years, Dave-I made no reference to the origin of the tactic.

...The Republican party would benefit dearly from anything that could possibly crack open Cali's many electoral votes..... :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

...The Republican party would benefit dearly from anything that could possibly crack open Cali's many electoral votes..... :whistling

---

Dear Lord, we wouldn't want that, would we. :ohmy:

It would seem, Busyman, that even a mild application of your brand of logic would reveal that any advantage accruing to any party would only last as long as that party gains the public's favor (vote).

If you feel it proper that the voter is the proper arbiter as to who sits in what office, I can hardly see how you could object; after all, the worm always turns, eventually, doesn't it?

In any case, it appears that, although you would no doubt advocate political/electoral fairness, you maintain an extremely sincere objection to Republicans holding office, even of if such has been demonstrated to be the clear will of the majority of voters.

Why is this?

so gerrymandering is how bush beat gore?