congrsssional redistricting with new census

[slothman]

We all know that the new census will add or subtract Congressional reps from states.
Therefore the states will need to change their districts to adjust.
If you were creating the new districts how would you do it?

I was thinking that either you make it so the districts are aligned on counties and town easily.
Or make it so they are closer to 50/50% D's and R's.
That way instead of safe districts the candidates have to actually compaign and cater to people's ideas.

It could also work with state divisions as well.
In my state of NY there are 150 assembly members.
You just divide the 20 million people or so into 130 thousand people per division.
All I would need to know is generally how they voted in the last elections.

[TCE]

Non-Partisan redistricting. Have a random, non-partisan person create districts with however many people (650,000 currently) per district. The person would not know anything other than the population. The problem with 50%/50% is how many people register as Independent and how many just vote in Presidential Election years. Of course, this is all a pipe dream, unfortunately, since the political party in power enjoys gerrymandering to expand their power.

[aGameOfThrones]

How about if we repeal Public law 62-5 and abide by the 30k per Rep, or pass Article the First.

[malkusm]

I think you're onto something slothman - I think the county/city rule is a good one. What if no congressional district could encompass part of a county without encompassing all of it? You'd seriously restrict the ability to gerrymander districts in the way that, for instance, NC-12 is rigged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif

[GunnyFreedom]

I think you're onto something slothman - I think the county/city rule is a good one. What if no congressional district could encompass part of a county without encompassing all of it? You'd seriously restrict the ability to gerrymander districts in the way that, for instance, NC-12 is rigged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif)

That is in fact ALREADY the law in NC. Every 10 years like clockwork, the NC Dems trot out their redistricting plan giving themselves more power, and every 10 years like clockwork the NC Supreme Court rejects 99% of their changes due to the fact that State Law says voting districts cannot split counties. The NC Dems just ignore it and go happily on their way.

[MozoVote]

It is possible to draw NC-12 in compliance with the court's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act (50% non white) with it compactly just covering most of Mecklenburg, and parts of Cabarrus and Rowan counties. The Dem Legislature couldn't resist sending it up I-85 into Greensboro and Winston Salem though.

[malkusm]

That is in fact ALREADY the law in NC. Every 10 years like clockwork, the NC Dems trot out their redistricting plan giving themselves more power, and every 10 years like clockwork the NC Supreme Court rejects 99% of their changes due to the fact that State Law says voting districts cannot split counties. The NC Dems just ignore it and go happily on their way.

:eek:

[malkusm]

It is possible to draw NC-12 in compliance with the court's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act (50% non white) with it compactly just covering most of Mecklenburg, and parts of Cabarrus and Rowan counties. The Dem Legislature couldn't resist sending it up I-85 into Greensboro and Winston Salem though.

Is that really the court's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act? Seems to me that this type of gerrymandering has been struck down by the courts in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Vera

[Promontorium]

I hadn't considered restricting districts to not cross counties. I kind of like that. It's not like it is possible to perfectly divide people into groups, and this way it would give communities representation, rather than letting political parties decide. It would give the state fixed positions for political strength, allowing people to choose, if they desire it enough to move.

I don't like the 50/50 idea, or any of the many rules already in place that give superiority to the two parties.

I also don't like the gerrymandering, so if the county limit option wouldn't be possible, I'd at least like a system based on population centers, not political centers with some kind of forced nonpartisan system.

However I am in California, and none of this is going to happen.

When considering California might lose a representative, despite the population rising, I thought 2 things, 1. This is ridiculous we need to base representation on population, not have a fixed number. 2. good! Good! I can almost see this as a political tactic, if you're state is primarily one political party, and your vote never counts, dodge the census, and help get your congressmen out of a job.

How do they decide that though? If California loses a seat, who goes?

[sofia]

How about if we repeal Public law 62-5 and abide by the 30k per Rep, or pass Article the First.

That would put all of the lobbyists out of business because then any citizen could take on an entrenched incumbent.

Money is no longer an advantage when there are just 30,000 people (which equates to about 7000 voters) in a district to reach. Any citizen and just a few supporters could then literally knock on all 7,000 doors in his district himself.

[RideTheDirt]

I say 30,000 per rep is a good idea. if we had 10,000 congress-critters they would never get anything done! :D

[slothman]

When considering California might lose a representative, despite the population rising, I thought 2 things,
1. This is ridiculous we need to base representation on population, not have a fixed number.
2. good! Good! I can almost see this as a political tactic, if you're state is primarily one political party, and your vote never counts, dodge the census, and help get your congressmen out of a job.


Where did you hear that Calif. will lose a rep?
I though it might even gain though Wikipedia seems to think it will stay the same.