It is hard to deny that gerrymandering (rewriting legislative House
districts to strengthen each parties hold on their respective districts)
exists. Check out this cool photo essay
and take a look at some of the wacky shapes of these districts. Like I
said, it is hard to deny it happens. Both parties do it, but many
Democrats blame this practice is abused by Republican state
legislatures. The result is that the Democrats can not win back the
House, despite having a majority of voters in many of the states where
they hold far fewer House seats.
There are essentially two theories that explain the discrepancy between
the number of Democratic votes cast in a state and the number of seats
held by the Democrats in the House. The first theory is the tendency
for Democrats to move to urban areas, while Republicans typically reside
in rural areas (people tend to congregate in like-minded communities as
illustrated in the NPR article from a previous post). This "Big Sort"
builds up enormously lopsided, pro-Democrat urban districts that are few
in number. The Republicans win by small margins in their many rural
districts. The result is that, statewide, more Democratic votes are
cast, but Republicans win more seats in the House (winning more seats
obviously being the objective for each party). The second theory is
that it is caused by the practice of Republican state legislatures
rewriting the district boundaries in their favor, making it impossible
for the Democrats to make inroads in these Republican districts. Read this NYTimes article by Nate Cohn (both "the Big Sort" and gerrymandering), this rebuttal by David Weigel (gerrymandering is the main cause for Democratic losses) and finally read this analysis by Jonathan Bernstein (Dems can't blame gerrymandering). Answer the following questions and quote the articles in each of your answers to back up your opinions. I understand this post is a bit more in depth than others and points will be awarded accordingly based on the thorough and thoughtful nature of your responses. One and two sentence, yes or no answers will not garner you credit.
1. What do you think? Is it the "Big Sort," gerrymandering, or both?
There are three distinct opinions here, all backed up by their own
analysis. Who do you agree with?
2. Is gerrymandering (as a practice - by
either party) fair? Does gerrymandering compromise democracy in any
way?
3. Do you have a better idea of how to split up districts? Should
there be a uniform way to divide people of a state into separate
representative districts? Search for campaigns against gerrymandering for ideas.
4. Should the 'supermajorities' in the cities be
broken up? Are Democrats to blame? Republicans? Or is this just the
way politics will always be?
24 comments:
1. I believe that it is both. I agree with Jonathan Bernstein. To me, it seems like "The Big Sort" and gerrymandering have sort of the same result - so I don't think we should blame one or the other. They both kind of have an effect on each other. For example, Bernstein said "if the definition of gerrymander is simply drawing district lines for political reasons, then the problem for Democrats is that the way populations are distributed makes it a lot harder for them to enact partisan gerrymanders. So it’s basically correct to say that Republicans have only netted a handful of seats from those partisan gerrymanders." Unfortunately, Democrats don't limit the power of gerrymandering by spreading out into different areas or environments.
2. I do not think that gerrymandering is fair at all. Honestly, (as we can see through the Big Sort), people of both parties tend to move into areas with people who share the same views. If they are already somewhat clumped together in the same areas then they shouldn't be able to change district boundaries to give whichever party doing so an even BIGGER advantage. The actual definition of the word "gerrymander" states that it gives one group an "unfair" advantage. A democracy is often referred to as a "government by the people." I don't think it's fair for the votes of those people to be switched around and counted in different areas so that they don't count for as much. I think it does compromise democracy in that way that it contradicts our main goal which is to be governed mostly by the people and what or who they want. Nate Cohn comments on gerrymandering; "It has indeed allowed Republicans to squeeze extra districts out of states like Michigan and Virginia, and strategically reinforce vulnerable incumbents. Those additional districts might make the difference between an insurmountable Republican advantage or a merely significant one."
3. I like the California citizen-led experiment in 2012 where they approved a ballot stating that a commission of ordinary citizens would redraw districts themselves. That seems a lot more fair than an operation that takes place behind closed doors, without any input from the citizens. Considering that this is a democracy, we should be allowed a say in redistricting. Weigel comments "You look at these maps long enough and you start to see the wisdom of Brian Beutler's idea for a gerrymandering detente". Beutler's states that the results of his idea would even out the playing field, "From that point forward, though, neither party would be allowed to draw districts that structurally favor one party over the other, for the sole purpose of partisan gain." Which would be the ultimate goal of any alternate ideas that we should try because it couldn't be any worse than it is now.
4. Yes, I do think that the "supermajorities" should be broken up because since the democrats clump so closely together in mostly urban areas they're votes don't count for as much which ends up not accurately representing what the people want as a whole. Like Bernstein says, "Instead, what’s hurting Democrats is “clumping” -- Democrats are increasingly rolling up huge margins in small geographic areas. The result is a few House districts with overwhelming Democratic majorities, which in the language of districting means “wasted” votes for Democrats".If Republicans get the advantage of gerrymandering Democrats together into fewer districts, then we should at least attempt to even it out by splitting up the clumps and allowing their votes to count for as much as they should. I don't want to blame one party or another for this because I'm sure if Democrats had the same ability then they would gerrymander just as much as the Republicans do now, so yes, I think that this is just the way that politics will always be.
1. I tend to agree with Jonathan Bernstein in saying that gerrymandering is a issue that has the potential to change the representation in the house of representatives, but its recent effects are not the cause for why democrats can not get adequate representation in the house. Bernstein addresses the true problem as being "clumping" which makes sense, because a lot of the democrats in a state live in one area they wind up getting more votes then they really needed to win in that district while leaving the other districts up for grabs by republicans.
2. I believe gerrymandering is fair if both parties have the means to equally gerrymander the same amount of districts in the same amount of states that are equivalent in representation in the house. In other words yes it is fair as long as each side does not have a clear advantage in the end which in a sense would make gerrymandering pointless . I also think that gerrymandering does slightly compromise democracy because according to Jonathan Bernstein " Republicans have netted a handful of seats from those partisan gerrymanders." which to me is a unfair advantage.
;However, this advantage is not significant enough to result in the way the house is composed now.
3. I feel as though to make drawing district lines fair one should try and split a state into a even amount of districts that has the same population in each districts. This would most likely keep things fair because it would widen the window for democrats to get votes into other districts and not be clustered into one area.
4. In general yes I believe this is the way politics are. The point of the game of politics is to win and gerrymandering is simply a means of achieving a win or in this case more votes. Also splitting the 'supermajorities' would be beneficial in that it would spread votes into other districts which makes the results of the votes less biased
1. I tend to agree with Jonathan Bernstein in saying that gerrymandering is a issue that has the potential to change the representation in the house of representatives, but its recent effects are not the cause for why democrats can not get adequate representation in the house. Bernstein addresses the true problem as being "clumping" which makes sense, because a lot of the democrats in a state live in one area they wind up getting more votes then they really needed to win in that district while leaving the other districts up for grabs by republicans.
2. I believe gerrymandering is fair if both parties have the means to equally gerrymander the same amount of districts in the same amount of states that are equivalent in representation in the house. In other words yes it is fair as long as each side does not have a clear advantage in the end which in a sense would make gerrymandering pointless . I also think that gerrymandering does slightly compromise democracy because according to Jonathan Bernstein " Republicans have netted a handful of seats from those partisan gerrymanders." which to me is a unfair advantage.
;However, this advantage is not significant enough to result in the way the house is composed now.
3. I feel as though to make drawing district lines fair one should try and split a state into a even amount of districts that has the same population in each districts. This would most likely keep things fair because it would widen the window for democrats to get votes into other districts and not be clustered into one area.
4. In general yes I believe this is the way politics are. The point of the game of politics is to win and gerrymandering is simply a means of achieving a win or in this case more votes. Also splitting the 'supermajorities' would be beneficial in that it would spread votes into other districts which makes the results of the votes less biased
1.) I agree with Nate Cohn. He writes, “Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views.” Both gerrymandering and the Big Sort are to blame; it’s a combination of both.
2.) Gerrymandering is not fair. Because people tend to congregate in areas based on their party choice, politicians feel the need to then redraw the boundaries so they have a higher chance of winning that area. This is not fair because, in a way, it rigs the election. They are manipulating the boundaries to favor them, when the boundaries should be determined based off of population. Gerrymandering compromises democracy because it does not fairly elect the politician.
3.) I think a good way to split up the districts would be strictly by population sizes. Every district should have roughly the same population. After reading information from www.endgerrymandering.com, it is clear that gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be solved. The districts are generated by “legislators and political consultants” and “the public has little opportunity to weigh in.” Another website, petitions.moveon.org has a petition that states, “We, the undersigned, call for legislation that would put an end to the practice of allowing political parties to choose voting districts. This legislation shall require states to form a politically balanced citizen's electoral jury that would decide the boundaries of voting districts based solely on population numbers.” This could potentially be a way to end gerrymandering, especially if the districts are decided based solely off of population.
4.) Supermajorities should be broken up. I don’t think anyone is to blame, they just occur where like-minded people congregate. They should be broken up though because they create impossibility for the other party to win that region.
1) I agree with Jonathen Bernestine on this one. When it is all said and done, populations are distributed in a way that makes it hard for Democrats to enact partisan gerrymanders, making it difficult for Republicans to gain a seat in the house.
2) Gerrymandering compromises democracy because it messes with party lines, switches people around, and makes them counted in different areas. If politics is about representing the people, then why is someone else able to decide who is counted and who is not? " Democrats carved up Montgomery like a Turduken. Parts of the country remained in the 3rd, 4th, and 8th districts, and a big slice was added to the 6th district, which cut across the rural parts of the state that cut across Appalachia. Democratic candidate John Delaney won the Montgomery County part of the 6th by 55,545 votes. Democrats had strategically used the megacountry to overcome the rural GOP vote.". This illustrates how gerrymandering can be used to snuff out political votes.
3) A better idea to split up districts would be what they did in California, which was let the citizens redraw the maps themselves. Although it created some radical changes, such as the demise of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman, and a Democrat super-majority in California, it created a more accurate distribution of the voters in California.
4) Supermajorities should be broken up; this levels the playing field for Democrats allowing them to leverage their "wasted votes" against the Republican " Big sort".
Gerrymandering, with such hard evidence to show that both parties in fact do gerrymander, it proves that this is the reason. why would a political party gerrymander? because it works. the big sort comes in to play is some aspects but not as much a completely redrawing a district to get the votes needed to win. When a political party gerrymanders, they encompass the big sort groups in the process. gerrymandering does compromise democracy in a number of ways. When a district is redrawn to suit a certain political party, it does not show the true values of an area. when a district is drawn it should be with a radius of some sorts, which is able to encompass all groups of a community, getting a true rendering of who the community wants to run the office. supermajorities should in fact be broken up. i think it should be a shared blame of both parties, but not only are the parties to blame, so are the citizens for letting it happen. the supermajorities can be broken up with the proposed way of drawing district lines above.
1. I tend to think that its the "Big Sort". Because the way you live, a the location in which a person lives in soon starts to influence that persons belies. Even though Nate Cohen was both, he brought up a main concept in which backed up the "Big Sort", "The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other."
2. I don't think that gerrymandering is fair, and it does compromise the democracy, because then the people wouldn't have their own opinions, they would be manipulated to lean towards one party, and a democracy is suppose to be based off of the peoples opinion. As David Weigel explained that even though President Obama whose a democrat was able to win majority of votes in Pittsburg, the outcome didn't show when the vote for House came, as the representative was a republican. The results should've showed, but didn't.
3. I think one way to split up the districts is by how many people live in each district, try to create an even amount of people.
4. Supermajorities should be broken up, its why one state wins for one political party over another. But this is just the way politics will always be.
1. I think that it is a mixture of both because they both cast effects on the number of seats a party obtains in a state. However, I think that gerrymandering holds a greater weight of influence because it is physically singling out districts to benefit. I agree with David Weigel in his article “Gerrymandering and the Big Sort Fallacy”. This is because he states “geographic clustering of population is not an impediment to drawing more competitive seats”, implying that the Big Sort does not give as much influence, proven by the losses of Mitt Romney that had more people.
2. I do not think that gerrymandering is fair in any way. This is because the party gives itself an advantage by rewriting the district boundaries in order to gain more seats in the House, which is what really matters, despite how which party holds the majority of voters in each state. This compromises democracy because the government should equally represent the people. It becomes evident that gerrymandering allowed parties such as the Republicans to “squeeze extra districts out of states” and have also “strategically reinforce vulnerable incumbents”, shown in the article “Why Democrats Can’t Win the House”.
3. I think the states should follow Florida’s footsteps by enacting laws to “limit politicians’ ability to redraw districts for partisan advantage”. This was described through the Fair District amendments discussed in the map of “The Art of Gerrymandering”. I think people should also consider the Fair Voting Solution, which is found on a website to end gerrymandering. The site provides a diagram that displays a map of the states with new lines that give fair representation.
4. I do not think the “supermajorities” in the cities should be broken up because even if a party accurately represents the people in the cities, then those parties should be represented fairly, despite how big the population may be. I think both Democrats and Republicans are to blame because they use this strategy of gerrymandering to their advantage. In the article “Why Democrats can’t Blame Gerrymandering”, the writer includes describing both parties as gerrymandering: that the “gerrymandering Republicans” try to put as less districts as possible in the “Democratic Philadelphia”, just as the “overwhelmingly Democratic Montgomery County, Maryland, has been sliced up by gerrymandering Democrats to help them get majorities in a bunch of districts”. This disproportion shows that one party is no innocent than the other. I feel like politics will always be like his because parties will always want to work in their own best interest and will do what it takes to achieve their goal, in this case winning the House. They are more worried about trying to gain instead of looking in the best interest of the people so that they can fairly represent them.
1.) In my opinion, I agree with both since where people live dictates their views, “the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas”, but also, gerrymandering causes the representation to be altered, “Democrats would run the House if not for gerrymandering”.
2.) Gerrymandering is not fair because it is technically altering natural results. People selfishly alter the boundaries so they will win more votes, which compromises democracy. It changes the counts to benefit the Politian’s. “If the votes of people in those urban and suburban counties are "wasted," it's because the gerrymander designers decided to waste them while maximizing the votes of rural conservatives”. This demonstrates how the votes are mended with and altered.
3.) Districts should be split by how many people are in each location and it would be remotely fair and equal. Divided by the population size of each district. The article states, “The Big Sort naturally will lead to district maps that minimize Democratic power.” Therefore, if they were split up equally, the power will be equalized as well.
4.) Supermajorities should be broken up in the cities because it would equalize the district’s votes and it would create fairness for each party. “What’s hurting Democrats is “clumping” -- Democrats are increasingly rolling up huge margins in small geographic areas. The result is a few House districts with overwhelming Democratic majorities”. They should be broken up equally and not “clump” them all together.
1) I agree with Jonathan Bernstein because he believes that Dave Weigel and Nate Cohn are both correct. Barnstein takes ideas from both people to formulate his opinion. “Gerrymandering, by conventional measures, has cost Democrats only a handful of seats, not close to enough for them to have taken a House majority in 2012, when Democratic candidates received more total votes than Republicans.’’ Barnstein made this quote based on Cohn’s case and it is saying that gerrymandering isn’t responsible for Republican majorities in the House. Weigel is right when he said “there is nothing natural or necessary about keeping those dense groups of Democrats together” but that still does not justify that gerrymandering will make the Republicans always control the house. Naturally, Democrats tend to live it these urban areas so the only way to fix this is the redraw the lines. The problem with this is that it will not be fair for the Republicans. Thus, the will be a never ending debate.
2) Gerrymandering is not fair because it either create wasted votes or excess votes. The unequal race between the two parties due to the lines makes one party favored over the other. Gerrymandering compromises democracy because democracy is for the people and with gerrymandering the people’s opinions are not correctly voiced.
3) There is not a best way to divide up the districts because regardless how you divide it up, people are going to move near the people that are the most similar to them. Whether it is the same political party, skin color or economic status, people will move near each other. You could geometrically divide up the state into perfectly shaped districts but people still might move close to each other creating districts that are not fair.
4) You could break up the supermajorities but this would favor the democrats. In urban areas like the downtown of cities, many democratic votes are wasted. If this is broken up, it will favor the Democrats because they will now be able to compete in surrounding districts. Politics will always be this way because there is no way to make it completely equal between the two parties.
1) Of course, you cannot deny that gerrymandering has an influence on house seating, but gerrymandering is a tactic that BOTH parties use successfully in many cases. David Weigel even provides proof that Democrats gerrymander. The big sort, however, explains a natural occurrence that puts the Democrats specifically at a disadvantage. I agree with Jonathan Bergstein.
2) Gerrymandering is not a fair practice because it diverts away from winning by popular vote to which party can gerrymander the best.
3) I can't think of a better way of determining electoral districts but maybe they should follow natural barriers? (i.e. interstates, rivers, cities) There should not be a uniform way, however, because each state is different in geographical size, population, etc.
4) Supermajorities is a natural occurrence and is the way politics will always be unless another trend occurs. People with similar ideas tend to clump together and party influence is greater in their supermajority cities.
1.) I agree in both, due to where people live dictates their views, “the kind of place where Americans live metropolitan or rural dictates their political views." The country is divided between liberal cities and close in suburbs,on the other hand conservative exurbs and rural areas”, but also, gerrymandering causes the representation to be altered, “Democrats would run the House if not for gerrymandering”.Unfortunately, Democrats don't limit the power of gerrymandering by spreading out into different areas or environments.
2.) I think that gerrymandering is fair as long as each side does not have a clear advantage in the end which in a sense would make gerrymandering pointless. I also think that gerrymandering does slightly compromise democracy because according to Jonathan Bernstein " Republicans have netted a handful of seats from those partisan gerrymanders." But this isn't as an important advantage as the others.
3.)There is no best way to divide up the districts, regardless of how you divide it up, people are going to move near other people that are the most similar to them. Whether it is the same political party, skin color or economic status, people will move near each other.I think one way to split up the districts is by how many people live in each district, try to create an even amount of people. But eventually wouldn't last long.
4.)Super majorities should be broken up, its why one state wins for one political party over another.
1) I believe that it may be both big sort and gerrymandering because of what Cohn stated in his article, "Why Democrats can't Win the House," "Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other." SO therefore with this reason, I agree with Nate Cohn.
2)The practice of gerrymandering is unfair because then the voting would be skewed. Gerrymandering does compromise democracy in a way that it doesn't reflect the citizen's preference, which is what a democracy is.
3) I think there should be a uniform way to divide people of a state into separate representative districts; I would organize this by having the same population throughout.
4) I believe that super majorities in the cities should be broken up because it'll give an advantage to one party and not the other. I also don't believe anyone is to blame for this; this is just the way politics will be because they'll never be equal.
1) I think it's the "big sort," because where you live and have an impact on your views. As stated, "the country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and Conservative exurbs and rural areas on the other." This goes in hand with the "big sort"
2) I don't believe that gerrymandering is fair, because voters wouldn't be able to have their own opinions or views, which defeats the purpose of a democracy, and the government wouldn't be equally representing the people.
3) I think the districts should be split by the amount of citizens occupying that districts, it would keep things somewhat equal.
4) super majorities should be broken up, it would make things more equal. Democrats are clumped together in small areas, so their votes aren't being spread out as largely as they could, and that's affecting their outcome.
1. I think this idea of "Democrats can't win" is very interesting and even though they have won the popular vote 5 out go the past 6 elections, they have not been able to win the House. Being the "biggest paradox in American electoral politics" there has to be some sort of answer. I somewhat lean towards the views of Bernstein because even if gerrymandering is the largest constituent of this heated debate, it is not to blame. Its fact that "Americans increasingly settle closer to people of the same ideology." Gerrymandering may cause unnecessary polarization in the house and it is not good for our democracy, but politics is never fair. Bernstein's argument of clumping makes a lot of sense because "Democrats are increasingly rolling up huge margins in small geographic areas."
2. Gerrymandering is the term given for lawmakers who draw oddly shaped political districts to give their party maximum advantage in an election. Even though both parties can gerrymander, it is not completely fair because it does lead to an unfair advantage or disadvantage depending on the population and county. It is not fair that county lines can be redrawn, instead, they should stay the same throughout. However it does not completely compromise for democracy because "Most local governments want House districts that respect both local government lines and communities of interest." Thus, it makes sense to split up the counties according to interest - it is done for the people. If political parties can take advantage of this without it being unconstitutional, it should be allowed.
3. To alleviate the said affects of gerrymandering, I feel districts should be split up based solely upon population. Thus each district will have an equal amount of representation and there will be no bias between a highly dense urban city versus a rural. This new legislation should require states to form a jury that would decide the boundaries of voting districts based solely on population numbers. The jury should consist of citizens. But again, there will never be a 100% fair way of splitting up the districts.
4. Supermajorities should not be broken up because the everything would be represented almost equally, and that is not the way politics is. If 80% of the voters are affiliated with one coalition, thats just the way it is. Also, breaking up all the urban districts would give democrats more votes, but then the people's voices in the rural areas will go left unheard. There will always be some sort of disadvantage and the whole point of politics is to get the voice of their people out. If one political party is winning, they are winning.
1)I agree with Nate Cole that it's both the big Sort and Gerrymandering although I believe it's the big sort more because it was mentioned that depending on the location of Americans, different places dictate political views of people which is why the country is divided into liberal cities and conservative rural areas. since people are often located in like minded communities and this leads to a lower number of districts, it makes sense that the republicans win more seats.
2) I don't see it as fair if just because it seems like one political part does it more than the others because they have the means to. If it was something done frequently within multiple political parties this would lessen the bias and make things more fair.
3) I found several ideas on the issue. One method was to offer a popular vote alternative which is to assign electoral votes "via gerrymandered congressional districts" which would in turn give people a say in the matter and on the issue.
4)I don't think breaking up the "supermajorities" will completely solve the issue so I personally don't think it is necessary. I feel like neither democrats or republicans are to blame for this issue because of how politics are now a days. Politicians and political parties will try every method they can to win votes and get elected not just one particular political party.
1) I think its both, but I agree with Nate Cohn more. Nate says "Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that;s not the whole. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live- metropolitan or rural - dictates their political views."
2) I don't think gerrymandering is fair. Gerrymandering usually happens after the census, when the state legislatures allows only a certain number of members of a party to have a better chance of winning. It also happens when a majority party in the state gov. wants to have more power, so it does compromise democracy in a certain way. "The large Democratic margin in these cities allowed Mr. Obama to carry the state, but it did not translate to a majority of the House Districts." Nate says that gerrymandering is the reason why the democracy is compromised in a certain way.
3)Another way to split up the districts could be to "eliminate the filibuster in the Senate." This would end the sixty vote majority, increase the power in the democratic power and assure the republican majority is just as powerful. This came from the website newyorker.com.
4) Supermajorities should be broken up but I don't think there is anyone to blame. I think they should break up in order to create fairness among the states.
1. I believe this occurrence of returned votes is a combination of both gerrymandering and clumping. As stated in Jonathan Bernstein’s article “Why Democrats Can’t Blame Gerrymandering”, “Gerrymandering…has cost Democrats only a handful of seats, not close to enough for them to have taken a House majority…the problem for Democrats is that the way populations are distributed makes it a lot harder for them to enact partisan gerrymanders.” I agree that as assigning districts to certain areas in order to achieve a desired vote for one party or the other, the clumping or concentrated group of voters in a small area boost the votes for Democrats even if the surrounding rural area is Republican.
2. Gerrymandering is in no way fair. David Weigel in “Gerrymandering and the Big Sort Fallacy” says, “the mapmakers are exclusively focusing on population,” meaning that while areas should be sorted according to particular preexisting boundaries and set up limits, the people actually making the map lines are focusing on population size (and distinct characteristics happen to evolve in places with higher population like urban areas that push then to vote Democratic). Gerrymandering avoids the fairness of having equal Republicans and Democrats in the region which will then cause an influx of one or the other in certain voting districts or cause the votes to be “wasted”.
3. I believe districts should be split up according to preexisting city and county lines as not to disrupt the political flow of communities and also politicians should not be able to redraw lines. This job should be left to professionals who analyze a region and its characteristics. According to MoveOn.org, “This legislation shall require states to…decide the boundaries of voting districts based solely on population numbers.” By taking politics out of the drawing of lines, there would be less chance for any bias.
4. I do not believe that the ‘supermajorities’ should be broken up because people that tend to live in cities may favor certain policies that Democrats address. So just because a small, concentrated area is one political party, doesn't mean it should be broken up to make voting seem less regionally biased. If they were broken up, one state may not have a majority of its people represented in the elections.
1. I agree with Bernstein that gerrymandering is an issue in the Democratic house that has a big negative affect on their representation. Bernstein has come up with some valid points on how this issue has took a toll on getting a sufficient representation. This issue has only cost the democrats a “handful” of seats in the house, but it cost them the seat in the house.
2. I think that this practice is unfair due to the inaccurate count of the votes from the population. Does it give the politicians an advantage? Yes, But it’s not fair to the citizens who vote for the politician that has the majority of the votes
3. A better way to split up the districts is by creating a district with the most amount of population. If this area have a mass population, they should become their own district.
4. Yes the supermajorities should be split up, in this case the votes would be accurate and there wouldn’t be any bias involved.
1) I agree with Jonathan Bernstein's analysis of why Democrats can't seem to gain control of House seats. It seems like what he said about Democrats "clumping" is true. Since Democrats are more liberal and pander towards minorities, younger and more secular people, it makes sense that "Democrats are increasingly rolling up huge margins in small geographic areas."
2) Gerrymandering is not fair at all. It is an obvious ploy to win seats and representation. By very definition, it manipulates the population so that the votes create a certain result. For example, "overwhelmingly Democratic Montgomery County, Maryland, has been sliced up by gerrymandering to help them get (relatively slimmer) majorities in a bunch of districts." In that way, freedom and democracy are compromised.
3) If there were a more uniform way to divvy up voting districts, then it wouldn't really change things. Sure, districts purposefully drawn in order to solidify certain votes wouldn't exist, but the fact remains that Republicans and Democrats are going to remain in their respective places. After all, "there's nothing politically 'neutral' about straight lines and rectangular districts."
4) If the supermajorities were to be broken up, then Democrats would own a considerably larger amount of seats. However, a most United States districts are not supermajorities, so Republicans would probably still have the advantage. Like Bernstein said, "with Democratic clumping in the cities, those lines will favor Republicans in most cases." I believe that this is how politics will always be for the most part.
1) I think it is a mixture of both because putting blame on others just adds to more chaos. We have to know when enough is enough and sometimes people don't know when to stop.
2) I don't think it is fair because people word so hard and still don't get picked because people favor the other because of one differing view. People in different areas seem to vote as a whole because nobody wants to speak their mind because they are scared people will start hating them.
3) I think to split up districts people can have their own views and stand together on them. it becomes more fair since people are not hating each other when each side has a way of backing up their views.
4) Yes they should be broken up because it gets more people to have an idea of what they want and it makes less people feel hated. It also lets people see two different pictures.
1. I agree with both. Exposure and location both play significant roles in creating the views of an American. Depending on where they live, how much access they have to media and news and the dominating viewpoint in their area, a citizen’s stance on politics can be dramatically affected. However, gerrymandering has also significantly impacted the Democratic house, as they would “run the House” if it wasn’t for the political strategy.
2. Gerrymandering does not seem like a fair strategy. In reality, it relies less on which party is successful in winning votes, and more on who can attain the most seats in representation.
3. The most fair and equal method of splitting up districts would be to divide it solely based off population. This way, the power is equally distributed.
4. Supermajorities should be broken up. Dispersing these clumped votes out would lead to a more equal playing field for all political parties.
1.) I would have to take side with Jonathan Bernstein because its as simple as me agreeing with him most. His argument makes the most sense. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, so to me its kind of foolish for Democrats to whine that Republicans abuse it. In a sense that is the Republicans being smarter. Bernstein's arguments of clumping being the Democrat's true issue seems most valid. The charts and graphs prove this because Democrat's have it easy with major cities being in their favor yet so many votes are being wasted (clumping).
2.) Though gerrymandering does exist and it is intelligent to take advantage of, i would have to say that it is not entirely fair. Both parties are guilty of this practice, but Republicans are being smarter and somewhat abusing it, ultimately giving them the advantage when issuing house seats. But being able to just stamp boundaries around random parts of a state to make it seem as if you are acquiring more representation and more votes does not come across as fair. Therefore, i would have to say that this practice does go against the meaning and beliefs of the term "democracy." A democracy is a form of government in which people have the majority say, yet there are these artificial boundaries being placed randomly to provide unfair advantages to each party, mostly the Republican, and its not a practice that should be affiliated with a democracy.
3.) I imagine a very vague process of drawing fine lines for districts. It wouldn't allow gerrymandering. It would just be a straight forward group of districts where each district can go either way in terms of votes. There wouldn't be any fine-lined totally random thrown around districts to favor either party. Dividing people into uniform representative districts would not be entirely possible. In each district there is going to be a fluctuation of democrats and republics, some districts having more of one than the other obviously, but having perfectly separated districts totally representative of each party would be impossible.
4.) Yes, "supermajorities" should be split up because these majorities are associated with clumping and clumping is a cause that results in an extremely excessive amount of wasted, usually democratic votes. By splitting up these supermajorities these votes would not be wasted and would be more representative of what is actually going on. Because both parties are affiliated with gerrymandering and we are in today's age of politics, change isn't very likely in my opinion, at least not in the future, therefore i believe that this is just the way politics are going to be.
Post a Comment