How Michigan Turned Blue in '22--by ending gerrymandering

[RocksInMyHead]

But if the goal is majority rule....then gerrymandering isn't really a big deal.

Except that gerrymandering can result in minority rule with the proper distribution of voters. Take my state, Pennsylvania, as an example. Our registration breakdown is approximately 45% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 15% other/independent, and it's been that way for a while. However, control of the state House just flipped this election, and then only barely. And the state Senate is 28-22 in favor of the Republicans, with only one seat that looks likely to flip Dem in the next election (half the Senate is up for election every 2 years).

The difficulty with Pennsylvania is that the majority of Democratic voters are concentrated in a few areas (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton), so it's really easy to bottle them up into a few very heavily Dem districts (the Philly ones are typically 80-90% Dem) and create a majority of strong Republican districts, despite them being the minority party in the state.

Basically, whichever party has control when the initial gerrymandering happens can retain control indefinitely, barring a massive demographic shift.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except that gerrymandering can result in minority rule with the proper distribution of voters. Take my state, Pennsylvania, as an example. Our registration breakdown is approximately 45% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 15% other/independent, and it's been that way for a while. However, control of the state House just flipped this election, and then only barely. And the state Senate is 28-22 in favor of the Republicans, with only one seat that looks likely to flip Dem in the next election (half the Senate is up for election every 2 years).

The difficulty with Pennsylvania is that the majority of Democratic voters are concentrated in a few areas (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton), so it's really easy to bottle them up into a few very heavily Dem districts (the Philly ones are typically 80-90% Dem) and create a majority of strong Republican districts, despite them being the minority party in the state.

Basically, whichever party has control when the initial gerrymandering happens can retain control indefinitely, barring a massive demographic shift.

You're telling me that your state has a 5% difference between voters.

And 15% voters can swing either way.

It's entirely possible that a majority voted republican.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do see what you mean. But to be fair, our representatives should mirror the number of voters in a state. Gerrymandering allows for a minority of the opposition to govern over a majority of voters from the other party. Americans in the majority are tired of being cheated by a minority government.

The cheating is an assumption though....you may not cross party lines ever, maybe your friends don't either....but voters do. Voters switch sides every election for different reasons.

So even if you imagine that a 65% means you were cheated if half the seats went to the opposition....that doesn't make it so. It can happen fairly.

 

[Brihaha]

The cheating is an assumption though....you may not cross party lines ever, maybe your friends don't either....but voters do. Voters switch sides every election for different reasons.

So even if you imagine that a 65% means you were cheated if half the seats went to the opposition....that doesn't make it so. It can happen fairly.

I agree because I switch votes for different candidates occasionally. I can't see voting for a letter to be productive. Murphys Law would eventually come into play once in a while where unexpected scenarios like that unfold.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree because I switch votes for different candidates occasionally. I can't see voting for a letter to be productive. Murphys Law would eventually come into play once in a while where unexpected scenarios like that unfold.

Good for you....no ideology has all the answers, nor could a party possibly hope to have the right candidate every time.

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh no, it's unfair when Republicans win, but fair when Democrats do. As if removing the lines they've had for 40 years wasn't, in turn, unfairly rewriting the districts to favor Democrats so they win. Trust me, I live here. Michigan is mostly Republican minus a few of the big cities in the south. The fact that Democrats have control after 40 years is not a fair reality.

Big cities contain alot of people... how can you say that Michigan is "mostly" Republican if you minimize the population centers that contain the most people?

 

[hedrick]

Democrats are not redrawing districts to their advantage. From now on, in perpetuity districts will be drawn by bipartisan committees and will be drawn fairly. That may mean that Michigan may have more Republicans in the future and these fair districts might have more Republican voters.
That being said I am fed up with people in rural areas complaining about how people in the cities shouldn't have same representation they do. The city with a million people doesn't occupy a lot of land, but that doesn't mean that those million people aren't deserving of just as much representation as you are. Constitutional innovations like the electoral college and the Senate with two senators from states of every size also tilt the balance towards more representation for rurals voters. So don't complain. You have an edge. Things were made more fair in Michigan but you still have an edge. You should be grateful that you live in a fair state.

Actually, Democrats tried in some places. NY is the most serious. But State courts stopped them there. In a number of Republican areas it appears that there are no checks and balances left.