As Geographical Information systems have improved politicians have used the census data to carve up districts that entrench their parties. They do this by putting all of the opposing party members into one meandering district so that the remaining districts are each have a solid majority for their party. This effectively takes away the representation of the majority party, as we have witnessed with Texas democrats (which was in retaliation to what Texas dems did to reps when they were in power).
This new technology makes gerrymandering easy, but it also gives us a solution. We can tell a simple computer program to use census data to randomly make districts with an equal number of people, that are all within a 45 minute drive (using mapquest) of a central point in the district.
Most parties in power will not agree to this, but the courts could mandate it under authority of section 2 of the fourteenth amendment which grants one person one vote.
Only random apportionment can guarantee each person an equal chance of having their voice be heard. We must use GIS to protect our rights, or GIS will be used to take those rights by those in power.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree![[SPAM]](http://www.whynot.net/images/flagasspam.png)
Flag as spam
Add your comment
Political gerrymandering has reached new heights brinkmanship. The gerrymandering is actually increasing the polarization in our society, and creating the gridlock in our political institutions. I think this is an excellent start toward disempowering the political elites and re-empowering individual citizens (if they were ever empowered in the first place). I actually can see a benefit to creating virtual districts, clumped geographically inside whatever level of gov't is the subject of election, through random assignment, with voting through the internet. (I think it would be interesting if not only the voters, but also the candidates were randomly assigned - but perhaps that is too far out.) Political parties and candidates would have to come up with strategies to actually woo and represent the entire set of folks randomly selected, and not just their "base" voters.
I voted for this idea, but I do not believe that it goes far enough in order to save our political system. Right now, we experience a discrepancy that ranges anywhere from 13-23% in the translation of the popular vote to actual representative seats. This is because of the single member district representation system.
If we truly want to counteract this, we need to employ your redistricting idea AND allow an independent regulatory agency to be in control of redistricting. The terms can be for 9 years with no possibility of re-appointment, which will ensure that no one person is able to control more than one redistricted map.
Similar, we need to employ the German method of translating votes into seats. Each party that has candidates running should hold a primary in which delegates will be selected to sit on a list. This list will be used to make the legislature match the actual popular vote. When all districts are counted, and all candidates from those districts are seated, then the delegates from the list are added to make the correct proportion.
If we don't have a legislature that represents the people, then we're doing something wrong...
Yes. This "vote-rigging" beggars belief. What's the re-election rate? 97% or something? Ludicrous.
Amen!
I had a version of this same idea (mine wasn't as ambitious). What I'd like to see is a website where voters could go and see a map of the districts, plus a measure of how they diverged from a random selection of voters.
Each district would be color-coded by which party was in the majority when the district was established.
With the right implementation, something like this could go a long way toward increasing the public's knowledge about an obscure but incredibly important issue.
"Most parties in power will not agree to this, but the courts could mandate it under authority of section 2 of the fourteenth amendment which grants one person one vote."
Now, this is the part I just don't get. Yes, Gerrymandeering is heinous. But, it does not violate that the 'one person, one vote' rule. Each person still gets one vote in a gerrymandered district just as they would in a non-gerrymandred one (which we have NEVER had in our entire history..even before computers, btw).
Furthermore, the Consitution is quite clear on who controls the redistricting process ... the state legislatures. It was only because of way out of bounds rulings by activist courts in the last half of the last century that interfered with that. Recent Supreme Court rulings (last ten years of so) have been reversing many of those rulings and restoring the proper rights of the states back to them.
Look folks, you want to change how our constitutional system works, do so through the amendment process, ok? Don't rely on some court to butcher it. Because, while today the courts might give you things that you like, tomorrow they can just as easily take it away or give you things that you don't like (just ask the foks who really digged the Dredd Scott decision). That is called 'tyranny'.
I like this idea, but the courts have not ruled on the 'one person one vote' rule fairly. In Texas, they said that the new gerrymandered map did not violate the rule, but in Georgia they said it did. I think it might require a constitutional amendment to require random districts. I am thoroughly disgusted with political gerrymandering.
Given the political nature of the current re-districting I suspect that the only way to cange this is via a constitutional challenge. The details, as long as it is a tenique that only considers geography, is not as important as the principle that peoples votes should count rather than be autoamically assigned to incombents.
Note: In our area, a candidate suggested that the districting be done by zip codes and county lines as these existed for other than political parties and that compactness by used to drive the program.
Fairvote has been working on this type of stuff. They advocate individual-based (not party-based) proportional representation, which would eliminate districting all together.