Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
How Michigan Turned Blue in '22--by ending gerrymandering
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JSRG" data-source="post: 76996630" data-attributes="member: 418772"><p>The problem I see here is that it declares something is "fair" if it reflects the voting tendencies as a whole. But that's not the point of districts. The points of districts is that different areas of the state get people who are elected by that group as their representative to represent their interests. That may or may not reflect the overall state population's feelings, but the point isn't to try to do it according to the state's general thoughts.</p><p></p><p>For an example, let's suppose that a state is fairly uniformly 52% Democrat 48% Republican. Maps drawn in a "normal", non-gerrymandering fashion would typically result in 100% of the races going to Democrats. You'd have to actually gerrymand in order to try to make the seats go in a manner similar to 52%/48%.</p><p></p><p>The goal of districts aren't to create proportional representation to begin with. I don't think, therefore, that one can say it's "unfair" or "gerrymandered" simply because the percentages of seats doesn't match up with the percentage of votes by the population (gerrymandering gives that result, of course, but again non-gerrymandered maps can do that too).</p><p></p><p>If the goal is proportional representation then just drop districts entirely and have people get elected by proportional representation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JSRG, post: 76996630, member: 418772"] The problem I see here is that it declares something is "fair" if it reflects the voting tendencies as a whole. But that's not the point of districts. The points of districts is that different areas of the state get people who are elected by that group as their representative to represent their interests. That may or may not reflect the overall state population's feelings, but the point isn't to try to do it according to the state's general thoughts. For an example, let's suppose that a state is fairly uniformly 52% Democrat 48% Republican. Maps drawn in a "normal", non-gerrymandering fashion would typically result in 100% of the races going to Democrats. You'd have to actually gerrymand in order to try to make the seats go in a manner similar to 52%/48%. The goal of districts aren't to create proportional representation to begin with. I don't think, therefore, that one can say it's "unfair" or "gerrymandered" simply because the percentages of seats doesn't match up with the percentage of votes by the population (gerrymandering gives that result, of course, but again non-gerrymandered maps can do that too). If the goal is proportional representation then just drop districts entirely and have people get elected by proportional representation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
How Michigan Turned Blue in '22--by ending gerrymandering
Top
Bottom