I apologize for responding so late.
No, I'm not surprised. But my point is that it was the will of the state to have that partisan gerrymandering, even though as a Republican, it hurts me. I don't think it's unfair if California has a partisan Democratic gerrymander, because I think that's the general sentiment of the voters of California.
My point is that the will of the voters can be expressed to uphold or reject a gerrymander. They should have the power to express an opinion, and if it's upheld, it should stay. I just think the states should have the power to vote up or down a redistricting plan every ten years, and that's a fair way to exercise a democratic voice on what the map is like. I don't support the states doing "at large" elections for Congress Members (though it's been done before).
And the point of us being a republic is that we ask our elected lawmakers, on our behalf, to make decisions for us. That includes drawing district lines. This is, for better or worse, far more representative than anything else.
If gerrymandering is to occur, the point of having individual districts is effectively defeated. When entire regions are effectively torn up for partisan advantage, the people are not being fairly represented. Extreme gerrymanders can put the opposition in power over the will of the majority (I'd note the NY State Senate as one example). At the federal level, the gerrymanders in PA and MI thwart the will of the people. Even in otherwise barely Republican-leaning NC, Democrats won 51% of the House vote in 2012, yet only won 4/13 seats.
I can understand your hesitation with having independent commissions. However, partisan gerrymandering can cement a party's majority for the decade or even longer. I do believe that is fundamentally unfair and a conflict of interest. Putting it up as a referendum wouldn't necessarily work though. It's basically a process issue, one where the vast majority either doesn't care about or isn't able to understand (such as the filibuster). And, like I basically said before, in states with strong partisan leanings, a referendum is a foregone conclusion. I do believe the US is the only modern democracy that retains this system of redistricting whereby elected officials can draw their own districts.
I response to the recent posts, I continue to assert that the best model has the legislature write the criteria by which districts are drawn, then turn the process over to an independent body to execute the criteria and produce a set of different plans consistent with the criteria. Finally the legislature is given the final decision on which of the independent plans are adopted.
I think that's a very reasonable compromise. However, my biggest concern would be with the criteria being set by the legislature. For example, what would prevent a legislature from requiring that two incumbents cannot be placed in the same district? I think allowing the legislature to set criteria grants too much deference. Deference to the legislature has effectively ruined Florida's redistricting reform.
If you're talking about something closer to Iowa's setup, I would have a very hard time opposing it. As I understand it, election and incumbent data is barred from consideration. I think those are absolute requirements for a fair redistricting scheme.
Poll
