Does gerrymandering exist in your cunt?

Does gerrymandering exist in your cunt?

This is my congressional district

Other urls found in this thread:

wired.com/2016/01/gerrymandering-is-even-more-infuriating-when-you-can-actually-see-it/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_districts_of_Finland
twitter.com/AnonBabble

are you a negro?

Arizona
yes, their reasoning is
>The odd shape of the district is indicative of the use of gerrymandering in its construction. The unusual division was not, however, drawn to favor politicians. Owing to historic tensions between the Hopi and the Navajo Native American tribes and since tribal boundary disputes are a federal matter, it was thought inappropriate that both tribes should be represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by the same member. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, and in order to comply with current Arizona redistricting laws, some means of connection was required that avoided including large portions of Navajo land, hence the narrow riverine connection.
Using indians as an excuse

Why is this allowed?
Also
>surprise
Really?

Gerrymandering would be considered turbo corruption even in easter Europe desu

No, as the single government party easily gets >90%, there is no need for such.

Because $$$$ duh, those with money control politics
Nigga arizona has the crown for dumb ass city names
>Tuba City
>Bumble Bee
> Green Verde (literally green green)
>Nothing

Here is another Illinois hit. Can you spot the democrat strongholds?

It's since been redistricted.

huh

How on Earth is this in any way acceptable? Don't you guys have an independent electoral commission?

Yeah I get that, divide that way so a certain politician wins but this

Yes but they are also in the pocket of wall street, plus the average american doesn't know/care about this nor do they vote. Apathy is killing democracy

>Mathematically, it looks like the worst example of gerrymandering in the US. But it’s actually a logical, urban Latino district. “These people belong to the same media market. They watch the same television shows, shop at the same stores, and have the same concerns with the police,” says Michael Li, a policy expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. What’s more, if you didn’t carve this winding, circular district out of its urban surroundings in Chicago, the people who lived there would find it harder to make their voices heard in politics. Despite those Supreme Court cases, sometimes cities have to take ethnicity into account.

wired.com/2016/01/gerrymandering-is-even-more-infuriating-when-you-can-actually-see-it/

Friendly reminder that gerrymandering is considered acceptable if it creates ethnically-distinct districts for minorities

>it’s actually a logical, urban Latino district

>This is my congressional district

CHI

kek, I didn't notice that

The reason that particular design is in place is to ensure that hispanics get a vote rather than be dispersed among otherwise-contiguous white areas. Race-based districts are the main reason for gerrymandering other than sheer partisanship.

We do have an electoral commission in Illinois, but it's the state legislature that has final say on districts.

>The reason that particular design is in place is to ensure that hispanics get a vote rather than be dispersed among otherwise-contiguous white areas.

Are hispanics unable to vote when placed in majority-white districts?

>gerrymandering is considered acceptable if it creates ethnically-distinct districts for minorities

This unironically; this dates back from the 1960s and the era of the Voting Rights Act, when many Black people were finally getting to easily vote, and is to prevent among other things many states from districting such that minorities spread out in otherwise-white areas are effectively disenfranchised.

No, but their vote doesn't count as much when outnumbered by whites, so they don't really have a controlling interest in such a district. It's basically to make their vote count.

I'm myself white and am ambivalent towards this, and just wanted to explain the rationale for some gerrymandered districts. Y'all make your own opinions on it.

Those are Mexican neighborhoods

No, since we're a first-world country we don't have "congressional districts", and if we had cities would serve their purpose. Seriously, what civilized country has separate districts for elections and everything else?

>No Parliamentary/Congressional districts
What do you do instead, Swedebro?

>Seriously, what civilized country has separate districts for elections and everything else?

I don't the American system either. It's basically an archaic 18th century system that they find easier to just keep building on than attempt sweeping reforms

>attempt sweeping reforms
Depends on how sweeping they are. State Legislatures elected Senators until 1913, and people have directly elected them since, which is pretty substantial. Even today, while I admit that reforms can only go so far given the basics, there is a good chance we can see a National Popular Vote for President, among other things.

We assign seats in the riksdag (parliament/house of representatives) based on percentage of votes. For local representation there is municipality/county election.

Not really, it's always a bit of a fight when they adjust the district borders but there are no insane bullshit districts, because we don't have a first past the post system.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_districts_of_Finland

Åland gets 1 seat. Lapland is the smallest normal electoral district with only 7 seats because it's fucking empty.
There's always whining about thresholds and how truly representational the system is.

Municipal elections are a whole different thing, though.

I assume that's nationwide, what we'd call "at-large". That's obviously impractical for a diverse and heterogenous country of 325 million people and which spans an entire continent, with people campaigning and stuff. Forgive me for asking, but what do you mean by "local representation"?

>Lapland
lmao

Water and stuff is handled on a municipality level, so they decide about that. Also things like where to build roads/public transport. County deals with healthcare. Parliament makes laws.

Thing is... how do you stop it? Districts have to be redrawn to adjust to population shifts. The only real way to stop it is to no longer have require districts to be of equal population size.

kek, that's my district too

>separate districts for elections and everything else
That is pretty much unavoidable when electoral districs must contain the same population, which counties usually don't.

(red: electoral district, blue: county borders)

What do you need electoral districts for?

>democracy

>what is the electoral college

Reynolds v Sims requires both chambers of a State Legislature to be proportional, and prohibited the previous practice, akin to the US Senate, of allowing counties the same number of votes in a certain chamber regardless of population.

Ah. Pretty much the same here, although most domestic stuff is at the state level.

They're talking about having the districts be consistently drawn relatively compactly to prevent these meme-muffs.

To determine US House composition, since they're allotted by state depending on population. Perhaps a state might eventually attempt a proportional-representation thing like Sweden, but that's experimental and yet to be tested against a constitutional challenge in SCOTUS.

Something that some might argue is a source of banter and even in the US a source of quibble.

>That is pretty much unavoidable when electoral districs must contain the same population, which counties usually don't.

Yeah. The USA's problem is that don't have a professional, non-partisan electoral body like Elections Canada, the Elections Commission in the UK, Australia and New Zealand or the Constitutional Council in France to help draft boundaries for the electoral districts. It's left to the politicians who, surprise, surprise, rig them to their benefit.

The entire system of two houses is insane. Should be like Sweden's old one: upper house is based on total paid in taxes, lower on citizenship.

Lmao who's gonna stop them, the goverment?

Our entire political system is built around dirty tricks and dank ass backdoor policies.

Yeah, Electoral Commissions here run the polls and don't do really anything else. Since that's usually a matter of State Constitutions, which are usually amended in a process somehow involving the Legislature, it's kinda hard to change.

Ours are kind of wonky, but nowhere near as bullshit as that.

For State Legislatures, especially post-Reynolds v Sims, I agree; two houses identically-appropriated and composed with essentially the same function, being much a waste of money. At least the US Congress's two houses are a compromise among the smaller and larger states and have different nuances.

They could switch to same system as presidential elections but representatives instead of electors

>What do you need electoral districts for?

In general: to provide a single representative for each local, which provide constituency services to residences.

In Germany's case: that's how the German electoral system works (mixed member proportional, MMP). Half the seats are filled by local representatives elected by simple plurality vote. The other half are chosen from party lists.

Each ballot has two votes: the first for the local seat and the other for the national lists. From the second vote, parties get lists seats proportionate to their votes, least the local seat they won.

The system is also used in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales.

>> Green Verde (literally green green)

Each State's count of the Electoral College is the sum of its Senators and Representatives, except for DC (which doesn't have any Congressmen) which gets 3, the same as the smallest states.

No we have an arms length crown corporation that maps out our districts.

It's obviously retarded to have the people in power draw out the means of deciding who's in power.

As said before,

JUST

wtf is going on in district 12,9, and 4????

Probably other race-based districts.

Some of them
>The state legislature defended the two minority-majority districts as based on demographics, with the 12th representing people of the interior Piedmont area and the 1st the Coastal Plain.

The current 9th district borders were thrown out by SCOTUS this February, so IDK what that was, probably partisan since I see nothing of race. Ditto for the 4th, but the borders are still current.

>having single-member districts
>having electoral disctricts that aren't just towns/communities/ counties
>having 2 party system
absolutely fucking disgusting

and the biggest offense (because it would be the easiest to fix):
>not having elections during the weekend so it's a day off

>Districts that aren't towns/communities/counties
They have to all be roughly equal in population, even for State Legislatures per Reynolds v Sims. None of the above fit that criterion.

>2 party system
At the very least provides cohesion in a country with 325 million people, lest the parties all splinter up and we end up like the Weimar Republic but ten times worse. Still not ideal, I admit.

>Tuesday elections
This was because people would have the chance in ye olden days to leave for the polling stations on Sunday and have a day to account for the long travels of the era.

northern ireland was founded as a gerrymander, grabbing as much clay as possible while having a slight protestant majority, which thanks to more gerrymandering became way overrepresented in government
>"In Armagh there are 68,000 Protestants, 56,000 Catholics. The County Council has twenty-two Protestants and eight Catholics. In Tyrone, Catholics are a majority of the population, 82,000 against 68,000; but the electoral districts have been so arranged that Unionists return sixteen as against thirteen Nationalists (one a Protestant). This Council gives to the Unionists two to one majority on its Committees, and out of fifty-two officials employs only five Catholics. In Antrim, which has the largest Protestant majority (196,000 to 40,000), twenty-six Unionists and three Catholics are returned. Sixty officers out of sixty-five are good Unionists and Protestants."[67]

...

I had to google this and I study politics

hahaahah
hahahaaa

partisan boundry drawing still exists in developed countries??
you don't get the electoral commission to do it?
or another neutral body?

hahahaa fuck man, that is some africa-tier democracy you have going there

>pack all the mexicans into one district so they can only ever get one member
>cut a city up like a pizza so rural voters outnumber urban voters in the seat

Partisan Boundary Drawing is a problem I'm willing to admit.

>pack all the mexicans into one district so they can only ever get one member
Better than getting absolutely none if they're dispersed among white-majority districts.

>cut a city up like a pizza so rural voters outnumber urban voters in the seat
I believe you mean state; rural voters in a city seems oxymoronic outside of really-abandoned cities.

lol wtf

I'm also in Illinois, so yes.

well there are two theories about minority groups

first is by splitting them up they are likely to influence the majority more with their campaigning, and may win more seats
better to give them one safe seat and let them set up a minor party
it can be problematic for major parties campaigning in a racial minority seat because their campaign is public and could be spread to seats where it's viewed negatively

the other thought is that by splitting them up they will get no representation at all, and everyone will ignore them

you play based on the margins, the party with the most primary voters usually wants blended seats, so they get a straight win in all seats
(exception being minorites that campaign well, which are best thrown into the same electorate, to protect electorates with key members,and when the major party wants to protect from a landslide)

minor parties want to do pic related

I can understand it fairly easily, but it amazes me that it's tollerated to any degree in america

Also, the US House of Representatives has been fixed since the early 20th century by statutory (read: not constitutional) law at 435 members. So a state may still grow in population but lose Representatives if it grows slower than other states. I think that's also a substantial source of this issue.

The US basically adheres to the second thought, basically for the same reasons you stated.

Also, per , each state has a pretty limited number of districts to appropriate, all of which must be of the same population, so usually they can do only so many minority districts even if they wanted to, up to 2 out of 12 districts in North Carolina, for instance.

How is this still allowed?

Those are North Carolina's only majority black districts. If they didn't exist, the black population would be too spread out throughout the state to be able to get effective representation. I'm kind of uneasy with this idea, but I can see why it's done.

District 12 has been the subject of considerable federal litigation, including a few SCOTUS cases.

That particular one is to give Mexicans a seat.

haha people actually believe that

look at the numbers man, it's a scam

when legislation goes to a vote it can't be 4/5 passed or 1/2 passed, it's either in or it's out

if you had for example 5 seats, and the mexicans had enough votes to win two seats, if all the mexicans voters were put into two districts they would loose 100% of the votes in the senate, and even worse could only improve that position if they flipped a white-only seat with no mexican voters

however if the Mexican voters were split across three seats, they could win a narrow majority an 3/5 seats and get 100% of the votes in the senate

That's a bit too risky for post-desegregation mild-SJW courts - they'd rather give the Mexicans 2 guaranteed seats than 3 risky and 0 guaranteed seats.

that is what I'm saying

the mexicans are being disadvantaged by being put in one seat

I'm arguing that such a disadvantage is more a result of paternalism and an unwillingness to have the Mexicans (and especially Blacks in the South, though that is more legitmately problematic) get nothing at all, than outright active racism.