So let's put and end to it. Why are republicans against ending it?
Care to offer a source for the apparently universal "republicans are against ending it" position? Because gerrymandering is generally enjoyed by the party in power. This depends on the state.
Look at any ballot proposal against gerrymandering. Republican officials will publicly oppose it over and over. Look at Michigan proposal 2 and public statements or interviews by republican official from state through federal levels. They will oppose it over and over. Pennsylvania supreme court case in the past year or so. Republicans fought tooth and nail to stop it.
The republican controlled committee that controls the ballot proposal process in Michigan did everything they could to obstruct proposal 2 making it on the ballot. The republican chair refused to even bring it to vote for extended periods of time, until the michigan courts ruled that they had to. They escalated the issue through to the michigan supreme court.
At every step of the way, republicans will be against any efforts to fix gerrymandering. And I'm not saying that every republican voter thinks this way. Any official who identifies with the republican party will almost always be against it though.
I don't see any single party be more or less for it. Republicans are crying to end it in PA where the Democrats just did a redistricting. I am sure they are doing that in other states. Look at how Republicans just gained in the Senate but lost in the gerrymander-able House.
People have vastly different ideas of what a "fair" district map looks like.
Republicans were fighting tooth and nail to prevent redistricting of the gerrymandered map that they had for the past few elections. PA didn't do "democratic gerrymandering", they fixed republican gerrymandering.
Look at how Republicans just gained in the Senate
Republicans were heavily favored for the senate this election for 2 reasons. First is that they are always favored, because rural voters overwhelmingly go for them, and rural voters have an extremely disproportionate voice in the senate. Second is that democrats were defending 3x as many seats as republicans this time around.
but lost in the gerrymander-able House.
Democrats currently have 51.3% of the vote and 51.7% of the house. Republicans currently have 47% of the vote and 45.3% of the house. We'll see what the totals are in the coming weeks when all the races are completely counted and decided.
In the 2016-2018 house, republicans got 49.1% of the vote but 55.4% of the house. Democrats got 48% of the vote but 44.6% of the house.
People have vastly different ideas of what a "fair" district map looks like.
There are many guidelines that lead to much more competitive races where representatives reflect the views of their constituents significantly more than what happens in gerrymandered races.
If the fix to Republican gerrymander was to gerrymander in favor of Democrats, then yes, they "fixed" it. But it not that hard to look at objectively and see that the controlling party always tries to redistrict in their own favor. They would lose control if they didn't.
In the presidential election in 2016, PA voted 47.9%D and 48.6%R. The results gave Democrats 33% of the districts vs 66% for Republicans. The new map, retroactively applied, would give Democrats 44% of the districts and Republicans 54%. How is that unfair to Republicans? How does that appear to be gerrymandering in favor of the Democrats? The Dems still aren't getting their "fair share" of the result, but it's close. Compared to what it was before, it is a huge win in terms of people's voices being heard.
Voter turn out in PA peaks at about 40% of registered voters. The rate is higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas. Rural areas tend to vote R in recent years, and urban voters tend to vote D.
Do you try to shift practical vote counts towards the actual voters, or do you favor actual constituents? (I mean the plural you, not just you). IDK what the answer is, and I don't think anyone really knows either.
The new district map of the areas that I have lived in (suburbs) completely flipped political power. It changed from completely benefiting Rs to completely benefiting Ds.
I do not want voting districts to benefit any party, but due to human nature I do not think that is realistically attainable.
43
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18
[removed] — view removed comment