I’ve criticized the Democratic Massachusetts and Maryland gerrymanders in other writings.
Good to know. Whenever gerrymandering is mentioned, it is essential that the reader not be left to believe that it’s a game only one party plays. Everything the GOP knows about gerrymandering they learned from the Democrats, who used to to stay in power for decades, ending in the 1990’s.
The reason the Republican party has little or no representation in California has little to do with suppression and largely to do with its policies, especially on immigration.
Untrue. The election rule that results in two politicians of the same party running against one another is an egregious example of ideological suppression. One of the worst I can imagine.
If you want less partisanship, which you seemingly do, then you should be fighting hard against these gerrymanders.
Well, I don’t believe that gerrymandering increases partisanship, actually. It’s a constitutional practice. The suggestion that it’s somehow inherently unfair (which raises doubts about the fairness of elections in general), or that it somehow gives one party representation that they do not deserve, is an extremely dangerous notion to express, if you’re at all concerned about national stability.
Remember when Trump suggested that he might not accept the results of the 2016 election? Remember the outcry from the Dems? Same thing here.
I’ve monkeyed around statistically with various models involving things like geometrically-sound computer drawn districts. They don’t move the needle much on who gets elected, maybe 2–3 seats one way or the other nationally. Why? Because Democrat constituencies are packing themselves more and more densely into urban conclaves, where they vote 90% for Democrats, leaving tons of suburban, exurban, and rural districts which are either competitive or lean a bit to the GOP side, with a few who are hard right.
So, in the broad scheme of things, the gerrymandering in the blue states pretty much offsets the gerrymandering in the red states, the effects of both being heavily blunted by Democrat urban population-packing.
The fix to that? Well, more gerrymandering, where crazy-ass districts get drawn in order to bring slice of that urban vote all the way out to the ‘burbs, so it can skew what is basically a GOP district to the Dems.
So, the problem is going to get worse, not better. Wait until you see the maps the Dems draw after the 2020 census, assuming the Dems are in full control of a state machinery. They will make some of these GOP districts look sane. Take it to the bank.
Gerrymandered districts create an environment where the only election the candidate needs to worry about is his or her own party’s primary, where pandering to the extremes is actually rewarded.
Tell me about it. I live in what is basically a mandated minority-majority district mandated by the VRA. 90% (D). My congresscritter could care less what I think.
Finally, how long do you think people as a whole are going to put up with the situation where the consistent winner of the majority of votes still ends up as a minority.
Good question. I would hope that people of sound mind realize that all this works both ways, that a system that is fundamentally FAIR *sometimes* skews out of fairness for a short period, but then will get reeled back in.
After all, the “national House of Reps vote” is as meaningful a statistic as a football score after three quarters. The assumption is that the people (1) meant to vote for the state leadership that they voted for, and (2) part of that vote was giving them the ability to draw the districts to maximize state voting power in the Federal government, which (3) is in the best interests of the people of the state. So, how the voters in big Dem states like CA vote is totally irrelevant to Wyoming, and to suggest that those state votes should be somehow aggregated to create a “national consensus” (or something) would get you an F in Civics.
I mean, how unfair can the GOP gerrymandering really be if the Dems just picked up forty seats in the House, eh?
That continued result threatens the stability of our democracy, which is currently on shaky ground already.
Shaky ground? I have no reason to believe that. Why would you?