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: 76996784" data-attributes="member: 418772"><p>If a state is uniformly 52% Democrat/48% Republican throughout, then however you set up the districts you'd end up Democrats winning every election. That's how district systems work. This is obviously an extreme example but my point is that to say that it's silly to claim that "fair" districts produce representation proportionate to the voting habits of the general state population is to ignore the fact that in such a case, fair districts wouldn't do so. Districts aren't supposed to do that--they can do it, but it's not the goal.</p><p></p><p>Not to say, of course, that gerrymandering can't be used to make sure that it doesn't match the percentage. But I don't think fair/unfair should be judged simply on whether it's proportional or not when that's not the purpose of districts and even, as I pointed out in my example, totally fair districts can result in totally different proportions.</p><p></p><p>If the goal is to be proportional, then ditch districts entirely and just do straight proportional representation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JSRG, post: 76996784, member: 418772"] If a state is uniformly 52% Democrat/48% Republican throughout, then however you set up the districts you'd end up Democrats winning every election. That's how district systems work. This is obviously an extreme example but my point is that to say that it's silly to claim that "fair" districts produce representation proportionate to the voting habits of the general state population is to ignore the fact that in such a case, fair districts wouldn't do so. Districts aren't supposed to do that--they can do it, but it's not the goal. Not to say, of course, that gerrymandering can't be used to make sure that it doesn't match the percentage. But I don't think fair/unfair should be judged simply on whether it's proportional or not when that's not the purpose of districts and even, as I pointed out in my example, totally fair districts can result in totally different proportions. If the goal is to be proportional, then ditch districts entirely and just do straight 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