State Gains Would Give Redistricting Edge to G.O.P.

[babylonsister]

State Gains Would Give Redistricting Edge to G.O.P.
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: September 7, 2010


The midterm elections are being closely watched for the answer to a high-stakes question: Will Republicans have a majority in Congress for the next two years? But it is the outcome of a lower-profile battle over state legislatures that could strengthen the Republican party for a decade.

Republicans are within reach of gaining control of eight or more chambers in statehouses around the country this fall, according to interviews with Republicans, Democrats and independent political analysts. That would give Republicans the power to draw more Congressional districts in their favor, since the expected gains come just as many legislatures will play a major role in the once-a-decade process of redrawing the boundaries of those districts.

Republicans said they expected to win control of House chambers in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the State Senate in Wisconsin, and saw at least a dozen other states where they have a reasonable chance of winning control of legislative chambers. Democrats acknowledge that they will be fighting to preserve their slim majorities in at least 10 chambers — including State Senates in Nevada, New Hampshire and New York — but say that they see opportunities to gain control of chambers in four other states.

Redistricting, it has often been said, turns the traditional definition of democracy on its head: rather than allowing voters to choose their leaders, it allows leaders to choose their voters.

more...:scared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08legislature.html?_r=2&hp

[KingFlorez]

1. The places they can hurt Democrats are Pennsylvania and Ohio

Both are on the verge of total GOP control and are set to lose seats because of the census. The good news is that the Republicans can't harm Democrats too much without harming themselves by leaving too much Democratic leaning territory open that would have to be added to Republican districts.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Redistricting is really easy.

It should be double blind, where those that do the redistricting can not see the sections by geography or political views.


Take the entire population, seperate it into sections ten times smaller then each district, then link them on a chart based on geography. Sections nearer each other, next to each other, including natural and city boundaries closer to each other. Each city or natural boundary reduces distance on chart by factor of 2.

then mix up the graph that is created so it does not match geography when looked at, and have a different group divide it into districts.


For stability, color coding of current districts could be used also.


It is possible to district with no politics in it at all, double blind redistricting fixes that problem completely.


So you would have a bunch of bubbles of population units with no information about actual location and density, and people could construct districts not knowing the political or demographic information.


It is really easy to do.

I posted this same comment months ago.

[babylonsister]

3. Too bad it doesn't work that way. nt

[tritsofme]

5. You would likely see minority representation in the House plummet.

Although the House in general would be more favorable to Democrats. Currently the median House district is rated as R+2 even though Democrats hold an 80 seat majority, because so many Democratic voters are packed into fewer districts. If they were more equitably spread out as you advocate, overall there would be more Democratic voters spread out, but a lesser likelihood minorities would be represented.

[KingFlorez]

6. I'm not so sure that that is true anymore

Districts don't always have to be majority-minority to elect a person of color, some have been elected in districts that are majority white. Spreading out some minority votes can be done without reducing minority representation.

[tritsofme]

7. More than likely the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not saying that it is impossible or even improbable, for a minority to be elected to majority white districts.

But there is no doubt there would be a substantial negative effect on minority representation, at least at the outset.

[FrenchieCat]

4. 10 years of hell for Democrats!

guess that's got to be worth a lot to many!