(11-16-2019, 03:53 PM)Labster Wrote: Hazard, the gerrymander has a long an illustrious history in the United States. Just like voters choose their representatives, the representatives too have a right to choose their voters.
What changed is that it used to be done with pen, paper, and guesswork. But with the advent of GIS software and massive sets of statistics, we no longer had to deal with primitive methods without voter metrics. As 2010 was an good year for Republicans, they got the first crack at new census reapportionment and the power of big data. No longer would an elected have to suffer from poorly targeted districts -- now they only see voters that are relevant to their interests.
No.
Voters have the right to choose their representatives. Representatives represent their voting block to the best of their ability. If they don't like their chances, they can choose to try and represent a different voting block however the election system works with that. With FPTP systems, that's by moving to a different voting district. Being able to choose what issues are definitely going to be victorious in a given voting district weakens democracy however, because now those voters are irrelevant.
(11-16-2019, 03:53 PM)Labster Wrote: But here's the thing -- in the decade 2000-2010, Republicans were trying to remove the power of districting from Democrats, alleging unfair districts. In 2010-now, Democrats are alleging the same thing -- but the districts are somehow worse. But both sides are guilty. Disqualifying the entire government from staying in power sounds like a recipe for more Donald Trump types to me.
Yes, both sides have done gerrymandering.
Any and all officials that have gerrymandered for the sake of remaining in power should have their right to vote removed. You don't have to gerrymander to remain in power when your party program is popular enough, and you might have to gerrymander to properly represent the people. I mean, if the simplest map that could be drawn favours 1 party over another to an extent that it warps the proportional representation as counted by votes cast in an election, it may be necessary to gerrymander the map to more accurately reflect the result of the election. If there's an election and party A and B both get about 50% of the votes, but 60% of the seats go to one party and the remaining 40% to the other, you've got a problem. Especially if that is a result you see time and time again in elections in that district.
In that case, gerrymandering the map so both parties get about 50% of the seats, or even more preferable, as many seats as possible are uncertain and thus to be fought for in the election is the right decision. But ensuring that the results of the election are properly reflected in the officials elected by that election is the only form of gerrymandering I would consider proper.
(11-16-2019, 06:03 PM)robkelk Wrote: I don't know what keeps your election-oversight bureaucrats busy between elections in the USA, but up here in Canada, part of Elections Canada's job is to re-draw the boundaries after each census - and Elections Canada answers to the sovereign, not to the politicians. (I understand in the USA, the sovereign is The People.)
We can help you set up a similar system if you want...
The Dutch election oversight bureaucrats aren't that busy between elections as far as I can tell. We use paper ballots and every election is list tranferable vote. Unless you try to interfere directly at the ballot box, the options available to mess with an election are decidedly more limited here than in some other places.