Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by s73ver on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @01:27PM
(#14754481)
Take the power to create districts away from the legislature. Give it to a non-partisan commission. 1/3 Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 other/no party. We did that in California, and almost none of the legislators were happy with it, which means it probably did a good job. The state still wound up with mostly Democratic representation, but that's more a product of California being heavily Democrat. I'd imagine that if you did the same thing in Texas, even if the districts were much less gerrymandered, you'd still have mostly Republicans.
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by bumblebeard on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @05:13PM
(#14756736)
Iowa's redistricting commission is truly non-partisan: no politicians are allowed to participate.
Seems to work fairly well for them just looking at the maps and variety of results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_congressional_districts
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by s73ver on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @07:37PM
(#14757601)
Everyone's going to be somewhat political. So no politicians is a good rule, but it still would be good to know the political affiliations of the people doing the districting.
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by Spivak on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @02:46PM
(#14755331)
Woo! Enshrining the current two party system in legislation. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by zzalpha on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @06:16PM
(#14757157)
You're objecting to one example of an implementation when you should be focused on the idea. You can clearly define it in such a way as to not rule out multi-party representation as needed. Many other countries have cracked this nut (see Elections Canada). Of course, the history of the US political system seems to be one of NIH...
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by s73ver on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @03:58PM
(#14756075)
So don't include them by name. Just say the two major parties. Doesn't matter, doesn't change a thing.
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by kesselvon on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @04:13PM
(#14756215)
first two parties to finish in the last election would be just as good
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by s73ver on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @06:24PM
(#14757202)
Sure. I figure if we ever get to the point where there aren't two major parties, it can either be fixed then, or we're under one party autocratic rule and it won't matter anymore.
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by thaumasiotes on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @01:00PM
(#14754240)
As possible given what constraints? There's no requirement that they have equal population; it seems like your rule would always require districts to cross zero county lines.
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by bluetwo on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @02:36PM
(#14755241)
If it could be drawn while crossing zero lines, then yes. But even then it is likely several different options would exist, and each party would try to pick one that favors them.
I'm OK with that as a solution.
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by s73ver on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @07:47PM
(#14757649)
Then why not make the county the de facto district, and subdivide the county as needed when populations rise?
Re:What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin ge...
by thaumasiotes on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @02:56PM
(#14755434)
> If it could be drawn while crossing zero lines, then yes
What would prevent this?
Yes, some manipulation would still be possible, but it would be greatly diminished.