Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Gerrymandering

This poll shows you’re correct Greger.

37% of Republicans feel Biden voters are this nation's biggest enemy or the USA's number one threat to its survival.. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats think Trump voters are this nation's number one enemy and biggest threat to our democracy.

The poll used Biden and Trump voters instead of Republican and Democratic parties. But I think the meaning is the same.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...voters_see_each_other_as_america_s_enemy

The polls didn’t include how independents viewed the major parties as enemies or how they viewed Trump or Biden voters. If you use favorable and unfavorable ratings instead of enemy of the U.S., you end up with 25% of independents viewing the Democratic Party in a favorable light, 64% unfavorable. 28% of independents view the Republican Party favorable/61% unfavorable.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/pnu6yfcz0j/econTabReport.pdf

The questions are a bit different, but there’s no love out there for either major party when it comes to independents. I’ll go out on a limb here; I assume the 25% of independents who view the Democratic Party favorable are independents lean democratic. That the 28% of independents who view the Republican Party favorable are independents lean Republicans. That pure or true independents with no leans are disgusted with both major parties.

Thanks for the explanation, I was able to go to several 'official' redistricting sites afterward and better understand what they were presenting.

For the sake of discussion, it does occur to me that somewhere there is a line (and not a distinct one) between 'redistricting' and 'gerrymandering'. FTR, I live in NM02, and have seen it change from red to blue to red to blue to red again in the past 20 years, so the characterization as 'safe red' is suspect. Given that history, might it not be a possibility that it was previously gerrymandered into a safe Republican district and has now been un-gerrymandered? This question reasonably indicates that this example probably lies on the side of redistricting.

Several other facts favor this characterization. One is that a safe Democratic district was made competitive at the same time as the "safe" Republican district was. A second fact is that the new boundaries are not weird, like is often the case with gerrymandering. New Mexico is a strongly blue leaning state, and there is no expectation or requirement that there should be a token representative from the opposition. One more element is that the red lean of NM02 is heavily funded by oil and gas interests, a condition that I see as contrary to democracy.

The two blue Representatives that I have known were both very cautious and respectful of the other side - a function of the perceived red lean, I expect. The red Representatives were all flaming, lying, Trumpian assholes though, with blatant disrespect for the other side. I say this not just from what's in the news, but from personal interactions with them. The current holder of the seat is a less talented Marjorie Taylor Greene, who in spite of co-sponsoring a bill ostensibly supporting biochar production, has refused to engage with the only biochar business in the state, which happens to be establishing new manufacturing in her district! I met with one of her staff about it, raising awareness of our existence and offering to be of service, which has been followed by a stony silence (they must have looked up my voter registration).

I don’t get excited over gerrymandering. Both sides do it when they have the opportunity. Congressional districts change over time. People move in and move out of the district. People die and new voters get added to the voter rolls. Gerrymandering has its biggest impact on the first election following the redrawing of the districts. A classic example is Georgia’s CD-6 north of Atlanta. Drawn to a PVI of R +20 in 2010. Then folks from Atlanta moved in, a lot of the original folks moved out, new people added to rolls, people deleted. By 2016 CD-6 had become a swing district. In 2018 they elected a democrat and did so again in 2020. The district by the end of 2020 had become a PVI of D+6.

NM doesn’t have the number of representatives to play with it too much. The lines are fairly straight. Taking Albuquerque, CD-1 way down south into what used to Be CD 2 was a way to introduce more Democratic voters into CD2. The same with CD 3 being push further south on the Eastern side of MN. When you change a district from R +14 to a D+4, even with straight lines, that still is classified as gerrymandering.

The only sure thing is one won’t know if this works for the democrats until all the votes are counted. Independents can overcome a D +4 in the new CD-2 and the D +5 in the new CD-3. A vote of 58-42 or something akin to that by independents probably would make both 2 and 3 red. A SWAG here as I don’t know much about NM. CD-1 is the only district basically assured of going Democratic. It is very possible this redrawing of districts will work out into a 3-0 Democratic advantage. But depending on the political situation come Nov 2022, this redrawing could backfire into 2 Republicans winning instead of 1.

On paper, in theory, this looks like a 3-0 win for the democrats. On Paper, in theory, but the game still must be played, the election held and what looks like a sweep by the democrats could turn out quite different.

As for crossing over the line from plain redistricting to gerrymandering, I know of no exact definition. Personally, I would say changing a district’s PVI by 10 points, from one side being a +5 to giving it to the other side +5 or taking a competitive district and changing it into a safe district. Making a big change in the composition of the district. This was certainly done with NM CD-2. You also have gerrymandering in which an incumbent representative is drawn out of his district or pitting two incumbents of one party against each other in a newly drawn district.

How can that be????

If it were a simple matter of partisan blindness, then yes ... very easily. Bit is that really the case???

Suppose the US becomes a democratic socialist state .... how does that destroy the Democracy we have. Compare to a US in which states disenfranchise people by making voting more difficult or by legitimatizing discrimination, or simply overthrowing a government. How is that not destroying Democracy???

Is there such a thing as independent partisan blindness???? Apparently there is as I just typed the words.

Independent partisan blindness, now that’s something to do some pondering on. Perhaps so. It’s a known fact most, at least more than half of independents don’t pay any attention to partisan politics or even politics in general for 22 months or so in-between elections. Then in the final 2 months running up to an election, they decide who they’ll vote for. They’re usually too busy with other things they consider much more important than politics. That is unless one party, usually the party in power does something or passes something, ignores their wishes and wants to make them angry, then they decide who they’ll vote for much earlier.

Perhaps the phrase, disengaged from politics in-between elections is more accurate. It may boil down to a lot of independents deciding if they’re happy with the way things are going, the country is on the right track, they’ll vote for the party in power. If they’re not happy, dissatisfied, thinking things are going to hades in a hand basket, the country is headed in the wrong direction, they’ll vote for out of power party. Is this what you call independent partisan blindness?

What’s ironic about all of this, is this group of disengaged voters called independents decide elections. I think most of this group of voters aren’t a bit interested in partisan politics. Just whether their lives are better or worse today than their lives were yesterday. I usually call this group of non-affiliated voters, the less to non-partisan voters. So partisan blindness does seem to apply.

By the way, the idea that high voter turnout benefits the democrats is an old wives tale. The numbers prove this. I’ll never understand the Republicans trying to limit who votes. Sometimes high voter turnout benefits them, sometimes it doesn't. Low voter turnout has benefited the democrats at times, other times the republicans. Politics is one crazy arena.

Arizona became the 27th state to complete their redistricting. The democrats are now ahead by 3 in the gerrymandering wars. 177 districts have been redrawn. 258 more to go which includes the big states of California, New York and Florida.

Out of the 177 newly drawn districts, there are 18 competitive, switchable districts. Currently held by 13 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

New Jersey became the 28th state to complete their redistricting. In the gerrymandering wars, New Jersey eliminate a Republican district and formed two new Democratic ones. Under the old map it was 6 democratic, 3 Republican, 3 competitive. Under the new map, New Jersey will have 9 democratic, 2 republican, 1 competitive. Democrats are now up by 6 in the gerrymandering war. 189 districts have been redrawn. 246 more to go which includes the big states of California, New York and Florida. California’s independent citizen redistricting commission unanimously approved the state’s new congressional map, and the maps are expected to be certified by Dec. 27.

Out of the 189 newly drawn districts, there are 18 competitive, switchable districts. Currently held by 13 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

This 232-year-old power has never been used by Congress — but it could save the republic

Essentially, the clause states that US government should have the power - or the obligation - to “guarantee” that no state could so change its laws as to deprive its citizens of a “Republican Form of Government." This includes gerrymandering.

It has been said many times that gerrymandering is the congressmen choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their congressmen. Who said that, I don’t know, but no truer words were ever spoken? The framers also were very much against political parties. They called them factions back in their day. They feared once political parties were formed, it would be for the good of the party instead of the country. They were 100% correct.

If I had my way, we’d have a law that simply stated as many counties as possible would remain whole. If you had 1-3 representatives, then only one county could be divided, on up. Another way is to make these districts as compact as possible, which is basically the same thing.

We’re the only democracy in the world that has only a two-party system. All others have multi party. It way too easy in a two-party system for the other party to become the enemy and hated. In a multi-party system, one usually has to form coalitions, so hate and viewing the other parties as the enemy is reduced. You may need to to form a governing coalition.

It would certainly be easier if every congressional district had one central city, surrounded by suburbs, and then a rural ring. That was probably the case back when the founding fathers decided on the district system. Of course, that assumes that most people in each district have the same political and economic interests. Not at all true now, Employees don't even have to live in the same part of the country as their employer!

Maybe we should let people decide what representative they want to be represented by, no matter where they live. Then let the top 300 have votes apportioned by their number of subscribers. That way all minorities could have some votes in the House.

I would just dump the Senate: There is nothing beneficial or democratic about giving voters in low-population states way more power than people in high-population states.