There is one thing left out of the possible reasons for the mapping of districts... It could be that logical, geographic units, or correspondence to previous existing political divisions. I have often wondered if such a "neutral" or apolitically defined" set of maps that could be envisioned are necessarily better.
That's essentially where I end up on the gerrymander question. While there are cases where the districts are so unevenly distributed that it viscerally feels like cheating (some required by federal law!), there isn't actually a neutral way to evaluate such things.
As David mentioned with Massachusetts, 30% of the vote evenly distributed would get zero seats. I would say *should* get zero seats. If a lot of that 30% lived in the same geographic areas and plausibly held a majority in those areas, I would argue that it would be better for that 30% to have direct representation.
Western Maryland seems to fit this, and if you look at the map the Western district has a snaky portion that runs all the way to the outskirts of DC. This district votes Democrat, despite the fact that there are a significant number of Republicans. It would be easy for Maryland to draw a map with less area around DC and more area in the second-most western district and make a Republican seat. But I don't have a principled reason why they *should* or *must* do that.
It is, unfortunately, a purely political question. And, also unfortunately, it's a question that has to be answered by politicians.
I do not have finality on this...other than to share that I agree it has to be a political question. It is interesting to me that when a party tries to maximize seats, it has the potential to backfire badly. If there is a watershed election where there is a general move of 3-5 5% of party affiliation, the result would not likely be maximizing the representation of that party but rather the reverse.
I suppose in a more normal year, is it better to try to carve out districts that match the overall state splits (as the op shares as a benchmark), or what the benefits would be for such an arrangement. As the split of voters is not often even close to being cleanly geographic, there will by necessity always be winners or losers.
All other things being equal, and they are not, one might expect a relationship between the size of a state and the strength of its party versus the national party.
As a crude measure of state party, one might look at issues where the state party differs from its state's voters, it's state's same party voters, and the national party. The degree to which the state party thinks it can push anyway despite that might be a measure of its strength.
One could also look at fundraising, both total, compared to the money that flows from the state (whether through state parties or more directly) to the national party.
Let the People vote on purely algorithmic rules for districting. Apply the three (or in Nebraska two) most-favored rules to the sets of seats in order of their size.
I wonder whether there's any effect of differing beliefs about democratic values.
I find that, personally, gerrymandering sticks in my craw, because I see it first and foremost as a device for reducing the number of voters who have any chance at all of electing a representative they want.
I regard that as a bad thing, both <em>per se</em>, and because it reduces the perceived legitimacy of the government, with knock on bad social effects, possibly including people seeking other means (violence, bribery etc.) of getting what they want.
I'd expect that some groups of people sympathize with my view more than others. The opposite view would be something like "the most important thing is for <em>our side</em> to win". (That seems to be the only view I'm seeing in the press currently, but I'm not a huge news junky.)
If you assume that these two opinions, and others, aren't evenly distributed, you'd expect the folks who control the electoral map in different jurisdictions to have different attitudes, not entirely based on "what's most advantageous to us", whether "us" means individual representatives, the state party, or the national party.
I wonder how many Americans feel filthy at the thought of using the redistricting process in this way, and whether they/we have any effective influence.
Of course that would be hard to measure, given that most (all?) politicians routinely say things they don't believe, and may not act on.
Measuring is the problem. One could look for politicians openly admitting what they are doing, which the relevant people in Texas and California have done. Are there currently states which are doing the same thing but pretending not to?
The current willingness to admit if might be a result of increasing polarization. If everyone on your side views victory by the opposition as an existential threat, as quite a lot of people claim to, then all is fair in love or war and this is war.
There is one thing left out of the possible reasons for the mapping of districts... It could be that logical, geographic units, or correspondence to previous existing political divisions. I have often wondered if such a "neutral" or apolitically defined" set of maps that could be envisioned are necessarily better.
Love the read of your posts.
That's essentially where I end up on the gerrymander question. While there are cases where the districts are so unevenly distributed that it viscerally feels like cheating (some required by federal law!), there isn't actually a neutral way to evaluate such things.
As David mentioned with Massachusetts, 30% of the vote evenly distributed would get zero seats. I would say *should* get zero seats. If a lot of that 30% lived in the same geographic areas and plausibly held a majority in those areas, I would argue that it would be better for that 30% to have direct representation.
Western Maryland seems to fit this, and if you look at the map the Western district has a snaky portion that runs all the way to the outskirts of DC. This district votes Democrat, despite the fact that there are a significant number of Republicans. It would be easy for Maryland to draw a map with less area around DC and more area in the second-most western district and make a Republican seat. But I don't have a principled reason why they *should* or *must* do that.
It is, unfortunately, a purely political question. And, also unfortunately, it's a question that has to be answered by politicians.
I do not have finality on this...other than to share that I agree it has to be a political question. It is interesting to me that when a party tries to maximize seats, it has the potential to backfire badly. If there is a watershed election where there is a general move of 3-5 5% of party affiliation, the result would not likely be maximizing the representation of that party but rather the reverse.
I suppose in a more normal year, is it better to try to carve out districts that match the overall state splits (as the op shares as a benchmark), or what the benefits would be for such an arrangement. As the split of voters is not often even close to being cleanly geographic, there will by necessity always be winners or losers.
I appreciate and agree with your thoughts.
All other things being equal, and they are not, one might expect a relationship between the size of a state and the strength of its party versus the national party.
As a crude measure of state party, one might look at issues where the state party differs from its state's voters, it's state's same party voters, and the national party. The degree to which the state party thinks it can push anyway despite that might be a measure of its strength.
One could also look at fundraising, both total, compared to the money that flows from the state (whether through state parties or more directly) to the national party.
Let the People vote on purely algorithmic rules for districting. Apply the three (or in Nebraska two) most-favored rules to the sets of seats in order of their size.
I wonder whether there's any effect of differing beliefs about democratic values.
I find that, personally, gerrymandering sticks in my craw, because I see it first and foremost as a device for reducing the number of voters who have any chance at all of electing a representative they want.
I regard that as a bad thing, both <em>per se</em>, and because it reduces the perceived legitimacy of the government, with knock on bad social effects, possibly including people seeking other means (violence, bribery etc.) of getting what they want.
I'd expect that some groups of people sympathize with my view more than others. The opposite view would be something like "the most important thing is for <em>our side</em> to win". (That seems to be the only view I'm seeing in the press currently, but I'm not a huge news junky.)
If you assume that these two opinions, and others, aren't evenly distributed, you'd expect the folks who control the electoral map in different jurisdictions to have different attitudes, not entirely based on "what's most advantageous to us", whether "us" means individual representatives, the state party, or the national party.
I wonder how many Americans feel filthy at the thought of using the redistricting process in this way, and whether they/we have any effective influence.
Of course that would be hard to measure, given that most (all?) politicians routinely say things they don't believe, and may not act on.
Measuring is the problem. One could look for politicians openly admitting what they are doing, which the relevant people in Texas and California have done. Are there currently states which are doing the same thing but pretending not to?
The current willingness to admit if might be a result of increasing polarization. If everyone on your side views victory by the opposition as an existential threat, as quite a lot of people claim to, then all is fair in love or war and this is war.