Gerrymandering in North Carolina

[rstrong]

In North Carolina more than half of the electorate voted for Democratic representation, yet Republicans will fill about 70 percent of the state's House seats. It's not just North Carolina:

Most Americans voted for Democratic representation in the House. The votes are still being counted, but as of now it looks as if Democrats have a slight edge in the popular vote for House seats, 49 percent-48.2 percent, according to an analysis by the Washington Post.
[...]
So how did Republicans keep their House majority despite more Americans voting for the other party—something that has only happened three times in the last hundred years, according to political analyst Richard Winger? Because they drew the lines.

Link

[rstrong]

Is gerrymandering as much a problem in Canada? If not, why not?

It's notorious in Quebec. The separatists tried to con their way out of Canada in the last referendum with among other things, a vaguely worded question. (Polls showed that even half of those who voted YES did not want to separate.)

Shortly after, with the separatists promising to hold another referendum, 43 municipal councils passed resolutions declaring that if Quebec were to separate, those municipalities would stay in Canada.

Those 43 municipalities were quickly gerrymandered out of existence, assimilated into municipalities with larger French-speaking populations.

I can't think of any complaints about it outside of Quebec, but no doubt it's happened.

[rstrong]

Any idea about the reasons? Our system has the party in power in each state drawing the lines after each census, rather than a nonpartisan board or even a computer program. The GOP did well in 2010, hence the current arrangement.

In Quebec it was the separatist Parti Québécois who were running the province. Corruption there is pretty much expected.

Here in Manitoba when they redrew the election map a couple years ago to reflect the changing population, there was little complaint. The government simply made it's case on why the borders where adjusted the way they were, and there were no arms of one area reaching into another.

I think that transparancy was the key. That, and not allowing such changes very often, and then only for a specific reason (changing populations.)

BTW, the Parti Québécois is in power again. But don't expect a new referendum. A vaguely worded question isn't allowed any more, and polls have made it clear that the folks in Quebec don't want another referendum. They just didn't want the Liberal party any more.

[O Really]

One needs look no further than the ridiculous division of Warren Wilson College to disperse any belief in an attempt at reasonable districting.

[rstrong]

"Redistricting only happens once every 10 years. So Americans may have to learn to live with a Republican House, no matter how they vote."

If Republican Houses continue for more than 10 years, consult your doctor.

[Supsalemgr]

I would ask strong to share with us the raw votes by house district. The overall state tally is meaningless. I would think there will be some heavily dem districts that overwhelmingly went for the dem and that has an impact on the overall.

[rstrong]

I would ask strong to share with us the raw votes by house district.

You miss the point of gerrymandering....

[Supsalemgr]

I would ask strong to share with us the raw votes by house district.

You miss the point of gerrymandering....

No I didn't. Strong just did not like my response. As our boy Obama said, "Elections have consequences". The dems lost in NC in 2010.

[rstrong]

I would ask strong to share with us the raw votes by house district.

You miss the point of gerrymandering....

No I didn't.

It's pretty clear that you did.

No I didn't. Strong just did not like my response. As our boy Obama said, "Elections have consequences". The dems lost in NC in 2010.

Winning in 2010 did not give the Republicans the right to cheat on all elections of the next 10 years.

(Well, OK, it demonstrably did, but it shouldn't have.)

[O Really]

I would ask strong to share with us the raw votes by house district.

You miss the point of gerrymandering....

No I didn't. Strong just did not like my response. As our boy Obama said, "Elections have consequences". The dems lost in NC in 2010.

From my standpoint, I don't blame the Republicans for taking advantage of the law. Hell, I'd gerrymander them out of existence if I could. I blame the ridiculous law that allows it. Districts ought to be determined by computer, based solely on population distribution, without regard to party affiliation of the population. Nationally. By geeks that don't even live in the US and have no dog in the fight.

[Supsalemgr]

I would ask strong to share with us the raw votes by house district.

You miss the point of gerrymandering....

No I didn't. Strong just did not like my response. As our boy Obama said, "Elections have consequences". The dems lost in NC in 2010.

From my standpoint, I don't blame the Republicans for taking advantage of the law. Hell, I'd gerrymander them out of existence if I could. I blame the ridiculous law that allows it. Districts ought to be determined by computer, based solely on population distribution, without regard to party affiliation of the population. Nationally. By geeks that don't even live in the US and have no dog in the fight.

Yep. Can we refer to the 12th in NC represented by Mel Watt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Caro ... _districts

[O Really]

The 12th is one of those shapes that give "gerrymander" its name. There are others. Some make more sense than others, despite weird shapes, but it still ought to be done partisan-free.

[Supsalemgr]

O Really and I agree. The 11th in NC is pretty close to being right. In my view, the districts should be contiguous.

Of course, much of this started when the dems wanted to have "minority" districts. That was a trap for them as it allowed the GOP to justify their district alignments by guranteeing a minority district. One only has to look south and see the district that keeps electing Jim Clyburn. Keeping that district allows the GOP to gurantee the remainder of the districts to be GOP as they move predominantly minority areas into his district. Keep in mind, Tim Scott is a Black Republican who has won twice in a district that is majority White in the Chrleston area.

[O Really]

O Really and I agree. The 11th in NC is pretty close to being right. In my view, the districts should be contiguous.

Of course, much of this started when the dems wanted to have "minority" districts. ....a.

That, or in 1812 in the original gerrymander in Massachusetts.

[Supsalemgr]

...Of course, much of this started when the dems

And the courts and the minorities.

wanted to have "minority" districts.

There is some justification for that. Otherwise, racial minorities, even large ones, get no representation all. It's funny listening to a white southerner complain about it.

That was a trap for them as it allowed the GOP to justify their district alignments by guranteeing a minority district...

It's only a justification to you. Guaranteeing appropriate racial representation is far different from gerrymandering solely for partisan reasons. Don't like it, get your party to quit being so racist.

We can always depend upon Vrede to bring the "racist" card out. Different board. but same old racist rants by Vrede.

[Reality]

Wonder how the dems controlled the NC Legislature for 100 years?

[O Really]

Received: 4/15/2013 2:33:50 PM
From: "Rep. Chuck McGrady" <McGradyla@ncleg.net>
Subject: Rep. Chuck McGrady Weekly Newsletter

...So here are the new bills on which I'm the lead cosponsor:

...H 606 [NonPartisan Redistricting Process] This bill would place responsibility for drawing congressional and legislative districts with a nonpartisan redistricting commission. A similar bill passed the House last session and has been put forward by Republicans for several sessions. Of course, the Democrats weren't real interested in this bill when they were in the majority, but they seem to have more interest in it now...

If the Dems weren't for it in the past, they were wrong. It is ridiculously clear that redistricting should not be political. Ironically, if the Dems really were against it, it cost them a lot of seats in 2012. On the other hand, given who Chucky hangs out with in the Legislature, I wouldn't trust him with a $2 bet in a one-horse race.

[Vrede too]

The Supreme Court’s Election Reform Ruling Is a Big F-ing Deal

[GoCubsGo]

The Supreme Court’s Election Reform Ruling Is a Big F-ing Deal

Am I missing something here? Besides being poorly written, the gist I get is that a non partisan gerrymandering commission in Arizona is ok by the Supremes. Nothing to help rid us of Meadows until 2022, after our "non partisan" (per McGrady) lines are drawn in 2020.
Terrific.

[O Really]

No immediate relief, but consider: if the Supremes had said the independent re-districting commissions were not legal, then legislatures all over would be free (in fact required) to keep doing what they're doing. Somebody needs to start a referendum to force establishment of a commission. The Republicans certainly aren't going to do anything themselves.