Ohio Issue 1: a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gerrymandering

[josephpalazzo]

Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts, as a dragon-like "monster." Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name.

[facebook164]

What i dont get is why US dont let the fucking votes decide instead! Why group at all?

[PopeyesPappy]

States need districts to allow for local representation. Alabama has 7 congressional districts. I only vote in one of them. People in other parts of the state get to elect their own representatives.

[TomFoolery]

What i dont get is why US dont let the fucking votes decide instead! Why group at all?

Because of districting. Districts are drawn to best represent the population's subareas both nationally, statewide, and locally.

I live in Texas. Texas is an enormous and extremely diverse state consisting of 268,820 square miles (696,200 square km). For example, people in El Paso have very different political interests than people in Dallas, which isn't surprising considering one is a desert town that borders Juarez, Mexico (one of the most violent cities in the world thanks to cartel violence) and the other is a massive metroplex in North Texas with a population of six and a half million extremely diverse residents sitting on possibly the largest natural gas reservoir in the country. People with such varied political needs require separate representation and districts have to be redrawn periodically to account for population growth and decline in certain areas so that representation is not only appropriate for the interests of a specific region but numerically fair.

[facebook164]

Because of districting. Districts are drawn to best represent the population's subareas both nationally, statewide, and locally.

I live in Texas. Texas is an enormous and extremely diverse state consisting of 268,820 square miles (696,200 square km). For example, people in El Paso have very different political interests than people in Dallas, which isn't surprising considering one is a desert town that borders Juarez, Mexico (one of the most violent cities in the world thanks to cartel violence) and the other is a massive metroplex in North Texas with a population of six and a half million extremely diverse residents sitting on possibly the largest natural gas reservoir in the country. People with such varied political needs require separate representation and districts have to be redrawn periodically to account for population growth and decline in certain areas so that representation is not only appropriate for the interests of a specific region but numerically fair.

Why? Why would geographic area have anything to do with the impact of your vote? Every vote should have the same weight.

[TomFoolery]

Why? Why would geographic area have anything to do with the impact of your vote? Every vote should have the same weight.

It's not just about electing those people, but about how those representatives represent the people that elected them.

The U.S. and the individual states aren't direct democracies where people show up to vote on every single issue: that's why we elect representatives to propose and enact legislation on our behalves. And those representatives represent us based on what we want, and what we want depends a lot on where we live. 

[AllPurposeAtheist]

When I lived in Texas the street I lived on was about 5 blocks and yet carved up into 4-5 congressional districts. Some people on the street would have had to drive 10-30 miles just to vote so they didn't bother.  Many districts run along freeway corridors not much wider than a single street and may run 40 miles .. It's a real scam.

I really didn't expect it to pass in Ohio .. Bad news for the rubes. HA!

[Baruch]

Non-Americans don't get our Federal system of government.  They don't understand why our elected King doesn't just appoint local representatives from the ginormous corrupt capital city.  Fictional fear of this is exactly why the Civil War ... and state's rights are issues.  Local politics in places like France or England ... are top down, not bottom up.  In that sense, the US is still feudal, not national.

That and Texas alone is bigger than all of France.  Yet France is made up of at least 4 distinct regions ... which don't have the same politics, and all of which hate Paris.

[Baruch]

When I lived in Texas the street I lived on was about 5 blocks and yet carved up into 4-5 congressional districts. Some people on the street would have had to drive 10-30 miles just to vote so they didn't bother.  Many districts run along freeway corridors not much wider than a single street and may run 40 miles .. It's a real scam.

I really didn't expect it to pass in Ohio .. Bad news for the rubes. HA!

Gerrymandering is worse in Texas than perhaps any other state.

And no ... the US government is based on the idea, that citizens voting directly on issues is a very bad idea.  Some state-wide ballot issues get around that, but sort of prove the point ... that direct democracy doesn't work.  You need a professional political class to run things on the people's behalf.

[facebook164]

It's not just about electing those people, but about how those representatives represent the people that elected them.

The U.S. and the individual states aren't direct democracies where people show up to vote on every single issue: that's why we elect representatives to propose and enact legislation on our behalves. And those representatives represent us based on what we want, and what we want depends a lot on where we live.

i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.

[SGOS]

i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.

Oh, you mean voting for the president?  You should have said that right off.  The replies may have better suited your needs.

[TomFoolery]

i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.

Because local districts don't really matter when voting for the presidency, but the U.S. has more than the national executive branch that it votes for.

But this topic is about gerrymandering, which is redrawing district lines after a census to benefit particular parties or people by ensuring each district contains certain amounts of voters, which certainly does matter in local and state elections.

[josephpalazzo]

i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.

Gerrymandering is about Congressional elections. For the presidency, it's a separate vote - these are called electoral votes. Each state is given some many electoralvotes. Depending on the states, it could be  the winner takes all, or the electoral votes are distributed proportionally to the popular votes. There are 538 electoral votes in all, a majority of 270 wins the presidency. Historically, most states vote traditionally - either Republican or Democrat. There are only a dozen or so "swing" states, which basically decide who gets to be president. That's why a candidate too far to the Left, or too far to the Right, doesn't have much of a chance to win.

[Baruch]

Yes, there could be plenty of head scratching about the Electoral College.  But basically this is a broadened version of the Holy Roman Empire ... with its Electors ... who rules princely states within German territory like Saxony for example.

[PopeyesPappy]

i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.

Local voting districts don't have anything to do with presidential elections. In most states the electoral college members are appointed by the different political parties. Each party selects it's own representatives. There are no requirements to select representatives from congressional districts so theoretically all of a parties electors could be from the same district, but in practice it usually doesn't work that way. At the conclusion of the popular vote the selected electors of the party that wins the popular vote become the official electors of the state. In all states but two those electors usually cast all their votes for their party's presidential candidate.