More US gerrymandering
November 14th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David FarrarI blogged previously on some boundary gerrymandering in Pennsylvania by the Republicans. To make it clear both parties gerrymander equally enthusiastically, here’s a good article on what the Democrats did in California:
This spring, a group of California Democrats gathered at a modern, airy office building just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The meeting was House members only — no aides allowed — and the mission was seemingly impossible.
In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.
So how to gerrymander the boundaries when you no longer have direct control?
The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.
When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.
A bit like being a struggling desperate home owner, who happens to be the Labour Party Vice-President!
California’s Democratic representatives got much of what they wanted from the 2010 redistricting cycle, especially in the northern part of the state. “Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to DC,” said one enthusiastic memo written as the process was winding down. “This is a huge accomplishment that should be celebrated by advocates throughout the region.”
Statewide, Democrats had been expected to gain at most a seat or two as a result of redistricting. But an internal party projection says that the Democrats will likely pick up six or seven seats in a state where the party’s voter registrations have grown only marginally.
A very nice bonus.
The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state’s voters. The intent of the citizens’ commission was to directly link a lawmaker’s political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica’s review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.
They want insulation – they need a party list!
Read the full article – it is lengthy, but fascinating.
Related posts:
- The Redistricting Game
- Will the Dems lose the House and the Senate?
- A move to align California three strikes law with NZ
- A 17 year low for Democrats
November 14th, 2012 at 7:10 am
“They want insulation – they need a party list!”
Except that the party list is the product of a system of proportional representation. Systems like MMP make this kind of gaming irrelevant because what matters is the ideological position of the voters (party vote) not where they live.
The best thing the US could do to overhaul their system is switch to some form of proportional representation of votes/seats – although it wouldn’t be popular with swing states who get all the attention under FPP.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:13 am
They could have state-wide tickets of candidates for the House of Representative and each state could choose winner takes all or proportionality. I think that is how the electoral college works.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:41 am
I don’t think with the state of each of the major parties that voters will be seeing any change. Look at how both Democrat and Republican conventions rigged votes in favour of what the party heirachy wanted against opposition from party members. If party members can’t change anything then ordinary voters certainly can’t.
I’d suggest there might only be change if 3rd party candidates got enough traction to force change, but even then the Liberal Democrats haven’t had much success in the UK as far as electoral reform.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:55 am
It would take a major melt down in one of the two parties to see any fundamental change in US politics. At the moment, the republicans seem mostly likely to split – the true Tea Party tossers might eventually become too much for the so-called Rinos to stomach.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Nice try at an excuse, but I think you forgot Obama’s winning margin.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:11 am
“Forward”.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Hamnida: think your comment was intended for another thread, or perhaps parallel universe.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:37 am
Very good article here about voter fraud re: the election, and how the author thinks of the Dem mindset; how they are proud of cheating and love to get away with it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_the_2012_election_stolen.html
Yep, the election was probably stolen, but who can do anything about it now?
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:37 am
It would take a major melt down in one of the two parties to see any fundamental change in US politics….– the true Tea Party tossers might eventually become too much for the so-called Rinos to stomach.
Curious comment, you seem to be keen on change but are a fan of the ones resisting said change.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:44 am
The interesting thing about the voting machines is that there are also plenty of stories of people voting Obama and getting Romney selected.
I don’t think either party is clean enough – hence my post the other day about how the Reps should clean up themselves so they then have the moral authority to clean up the reset.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 9:30 am
‘Hamnida (864) Says:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Nice try at an excuse, but I think you forgot Obama’s winning margin.”
I know we expect you to be this stupid but it is amusing to point out the stupidity, ie every post you make…
Obama won by 62,281,602 to 58,900,448 votes with 57.5% voter turnout, hugely down from 62.5% in 2008. He has a margin of a few percent, with stuff all people actually bothering to vote.
If the USA had a proportional system it would have resulted in 276 Obama seats to 262 Romney. Hardly a crushing victory.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Nice try at an excuse, but I think you forgot Obama’s winning margin.
Nice try, but I think you’ve confused the Presidential with the Congressional elections….
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
scrubone
Maybe we can agree that fraud is not an issue. I think the era of American ‘exceptionalism’ is pretty much over unless there is major political change, although I know the decline of the US has been forecast many times.
I doubt that there is much incentive for the Democratic Party to rock the boat at present – their future looks rosier in term of forecast population changes. A formal split in the Republicans seems logical but such changes are historically only driven by very major crises. Does the looming ‘fiscal cliff’ count as one of those?
Vote:November 15th, 2012 at 5:32 am
I don’t think with the state of each of the major parties that voters will be seeing any change. Look at how both Democrat and Republican conventions rigged votes in favour of what the party heirachy wanted against opposition from party members. If party members can’t change anything then ordinary voters certainly can’t.
There was no rigging of anything at the GOP convention. Ron Paul did not win any primaries or caucuses other than the Virgin Islands. He was not entitled to be a candidate for nomination on that basis. The “members” had already spoken. Just because a few Ron Paul delegates were – undemocratically I might add – elected to the convention does not allow them to agitate against the clear will of their own states’ voters. Contrary to your assertion, the ordinary voters had the final say, rather than the machinations of the Paulbots.
Vote: