The problem is who says what is fair, is a congressional district drawn to meet average state racial demographics fair? What if that district is 200 miles long and only a few miles wide in some places threading through the center of multiple cities in order to achieve this racial balance?
If gerrymandering never existed America would not be nearly as diverse as it is now. Containing non homogeneous ethnic groups and taking steps to limit their enfranchisement was what made allowing migrants to enter palatable for the “progressive” white native populations in the first place. If not for gerrymandering there likely would have been more genocide committed in America than just the removal of American Indian groups.
My original comment was removed because of politics. I will repeat it here using different words.
The bodies made up of individuals selected by the people that live in a defined area would be significantly more homogeneous. It would be much more white.
For one, we’d see a much larger House of Representatives! Today, representatives are representing like ten times as many people as they were when the cap was set at 435!
If Gerrymandering didn’t exist in the United States, a certain political party whose name rhymes with “Poobublicans” would not be in control of the House of Representatives today. If all other things are equal and we just went by registered voters, it would be unlikely that they would ever be in control of the House for the foreseeable future. Also, they would have less seats in state legislatures. I think they would still control the number of state legislatures they control today, but just with less seats.
Politicians wouldn’t be able to pander to their base nearly as much as they do now. They would have to moderate their positions and everyone would start becoming more moderate/centrist in order to get elected. This is what happens in other countries where the districts are not drawn by politicians.
Gerrymandering is certainly abused, but I think there are valid reasons for it to exist. For instance let’s imagine a city surrounded by farmland. Lets say 25% of the population lives in the farm land and 75% lives in the city. If you just split everything up in neat little squares you might end up with four districts where city dwellers outnumbered farmers. The farmers would have no real representation because every elected official would be primarily beholden to urban interests.
So it would make sense to me to group all the farmers in their own district. That why they can choose a representative who speaks to their issues.
We would see a flourishing democracy with proper environmental protection, affordable healthcare and common-sense gun control. God forbid this will happen!
It’d be nice if they could just snap a grid over the US, and that was that. Assign districts based on number of residents in each square, so each district had the same or reasonably close to same number of people, and spell out exactly how the areas are determined in law. Reassess it every ten years during census.
Comments
What a wonderful thing that would be.
[removed]
[removed]
It doesn’t happen in Australia.
[removed]
[removed]
People choosing representatives and not the other way around? The hell you say!
[removed]
Alot of posts being deleted by mods for political language but the r/whatif is a political question.
Look at the popular count and there is your answer….
[removed]
Do you know how it got its name?
The problem is who says what is fair, is a congressional district drawn to meet average state racial demographics fair? What if that district is 200 miles long and only a few miles wide in some places threading through the center of multiple cities in order to achieve this racial balance?
[removed]
If gerrymandering never existed America would not be nearly as diverse as it is now. Containing non homogeneous ethnic groups and taking steps to limit their enfranchisement was what made allowing migrants to enter palatable for the “progressive” white native populations in the first place. If not for gerrymandering there likely would have been more genocide committed in America than just the removal of American Indian groups.
Not a problem in Canada!
The extreme partisan divide would probably not exist.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Great article in Scientific American on how to use math to detect gerrymandering: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/math-cant-solve-gerrymandering/
Huh, just saying the R-word gets your comment removed. This is a weird thing to do in a post that’s inherently political.
[removed]
[removed]
A nominally less corrupt American government that more closely represented the people of the country
My original comment was removed because of politics. I will repeat it here using different words.
The bodies made up of individuals selected by the people that live in a defined area would be significantly more homogeneous. It would be much more white.
[removed]
A lot less f-a-s-c-i-s-t.
A lot more D
Good luck to you
A lot more accurate representation, and probably a much more moderate government.
[removed]
For one, we’d see a much larger House of Representatives! Today, representatives are representing like ten times as many people as they were when the cap was set at 435!
[removed]
If Gerrymandering didn’t exist in the United States, a certain political party whose name rhymes with “Poobublicans” would not be in control of the House of Representatives today. If all other things are equal and we just went by registered voters, it would be unlikely that they would ever be in control of the House for the foreseeable future. Also, they would have less seats in state legislatures. I think they would still control the number of state legislatures they control today, but just with less seats.
A far more moderate one, since it wouldn’t all be pocket boroughs, representatives would have to actually court people of multiple political views.
The representation in the states would be so different.
Would that cause segregation?
[removed]
Minorities would be disproportionately not represented.
there’s a meme of this somewhere.
Double the number of Congressmen and gerrymandering becomes harder by virtue of every district not having 800k+ people.
[removed]
Probably a democracy. And wouldn’t that be a nice thing to have?
We would see a government elected by the people
Politicians wouldn’t be able to pander to their base nearly as much as they do now. They would have to moderate their positions and everyone would start becoming more moderate/centrist in order to get elected. This is what happens in other countries where the districts are not drawn by politicians.
Gerrymandering is certainly abused, but I think there are valid reasons for it to exist. For instance let’s imagine a city surrounded by farmland. Lets say 25% of the population lives in the farm land and 75% lives in the city. If you just split everything up in neat little squares you might end up with four districts where city dwellers outnumbered farmers. The farmers would have no real representation because every elected official would be primarily beholden to urban interests.
So it would make sense to me to group all the farmers in their own district. That why they can choose a representative who speaks to their issues.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
The morons that elected the orange pumpkin
[removed]
Yeah, what if?! Both parties try to rig it in their favor.
Everyone on both sides of the aisle would be forced to the middle.
There were be more blue districts in the South and the House would be a bit less swingy.
Elections would be much better.
We would see a flourishing democracy with proper environmental protection, affordable healthcare and common-sense gun control. God forbid this will happen!
James Clyburn (D-SC) has a house seat only because they gerrymandered his district for him.
What?? Actual representative government? Blasphemy!
It’d be nice if they could just snap a grid over the US, and that was that. Assign districts based on number of residents in each square, so each district had the same or reasonably close to same number of people, and spell out exactly how the areas are determined in law. Reassess it every ten years during census.