If you could abolish all Independent Redistricting Commissions nationwide, would you?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Republicans are the ones who seem to have a bigger issue with them even though ironically their abolishment would help Democrats in terms of raw seat count

[Ritz]

Yes. Dems are already f'ed on just about every level of government in the country, and they shot themselves in the foot by not taking the one advantage they could get. Democrats gain maybe 1 or 2 seats thanks to the commissions in AZ and MI, while Republicans gain like 14 out of Dem-controlled states.

[David Hume]

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

If I can decide, I would

1, focus on COI, compactness, minimize splitting counties and cities.

2, commissioners chosen by party leaders. If it deadlocks, commissioners from each party submit one map for the state suprem court to choose.

[patzer]

Yes, they're a massive own goal from the Dems. If it weren't for commissions, Colorado could have easily seen a 7-1 map, to become 8-0 once El Paso flips Dem. California could have seen a 52-0 map or at worst 49-3. Etc.

[TML]

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

If I can decide, I would

1, focus on COI, compactness, minimize splitting counties and cities.

2, commissioners chosen by party leaders. If it deadlocks, commissioners from each party submit one map for the state suprem court to choose.

For OH, do you think the previously-invalidated map where Republicans cracked Cincinnati and packed Cleveland & Columbus fits your rules? If not, how would you go about drawing that state's map?

[lfromnj]

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

If I can decide, I would

1, focus on COI, compactness, minimize splitting counties and cities.

2, commissioners chosen by party leaders. If it deadlocks, commissioners from each party submit one map for the state suprem court to choose.

For OH, do you think the previously-invalidated map where Republicans cracked Cincinnati and packed Cleveland & Columbus fits your rules? If not, how would you go about drawing that state's map?

Obviously no excuse for anything but a Hamilton district. Maybe someone who really cares about keeping the Cincinatti black community together could argue to strip a bit more from East or West Hamilton and add parts of SE Butler . The Columbus pack and the Cleveland "packs" were mostly fine. If anything the Columbus pack was partially ugly because it excluded 80% D areas in downtown Columbus in order to accommodate Mike Carey. The issues were the suburban areas which was pretty bad in Columbus although Akron/Cleveland was more just wtf.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I wrote a book about this!

But to summarize, my answer is absolutely not!  Every state should adopt an independent commission. 

Despite grumblings from both parties, nonpartisan commissions have proven to be consistently able to draw fair maps that also promote competitive elections while simultaneously respecting other districting principles that are prioritized by each individual state.

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

Michigan’s new map (drawn by a new commission) is one of the fairest in the nation, including many competitive districts, while still remaining reasonably compact.

California’s map is very slightly biased toward the Democrats, but well within reason, and is certainly must less biased than the alternative.  Before adopting the a commission in 2010, California had one of the worst maps in the country, not because it was outrageously biased but rather because it was utterly uncompetitive.

As for Ohio, it isn’t a commission that is enforcing proportionality but rather the state court.  I’m not a big fan of relying on court intervention to produce fair maps.  This most often just produces uncertainty and instability, as we are now seeing in Ohio and likely Florida as well.

[lfromnj]

I wrote a book about this!

But to summarize, my answer is absolutely not!  Every state should adopt an independent commission.  

Despite grumblings from both parties, nonpartisan commissions have proven to be consistently able to draw fair maps that also promote competitive elections while simultaneously respecting other districting principles that are prioritized by each individual state.

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

Michigan’s new map (drawn by a new commission) is one of the fairest in the nation, including many competitive districts, while still remaining reasonably compact.

California’s map is very slightly biased toward the Democrats, but well within reason, and is certainly must less biased than the alternative.  Before adopting the a commission in 2010, California had one of the worst maps in the country, not because it was outrageously biased but rather because it was utterly uncompetitive.

As for Ohio, it isn’t a commission that is enforcing proportionality but rather the state court.  I’m not a big fan of relying on court intervention to produce fair maps.  This most often just produces uncertainty and instability, as we are now seeing in Ohio and likely Florida as well.

Commisions don't really consider competitve elections. Colorado tried to some degree but in the end  it didn't have enough votes because it was even more lol tier.


MI's commision had the option to draw a perfect Trump +0 to Biden +1 seat yet made it nearly double digit Biden. Not sure how exactly they helped competition in a neutral year.

In the end competive seats aren't really good either but I just felt like pointing it out.Colorado's competitive proposal was a total disaster and narrowly averted. The closest to a true indy(Ms.Schell did claim she cared about competiveness but she only used it as a tiebreaker between 2 similar plans instead of messing up the map further)

[Sol]

I wrote a book about this!

But to summarize, my answer is absolutely not!  Every state should adopt an independent commission.  

Despite grumblings from both parties, nonpartisan commissions have proven to be consistently able to draw fair maps that also promote competitive elections while simultaneously respecting other districting principles that are prioritized by each individual state.

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

Michigan’s new map (drawn by a new commission) is one of the fairest in the nation, including many competitive districts, while still remaining reasonably compact.

California’s map is very slightly biased toward the Democrats, but well within reason, and is certainly must less biased than the alternative.  Before adopting the a commission in 2010, California had one of the worst maps in the country, not because it was outrageously biased but rather because it was utterly uncompetitive.

As for Ohio, it isn’t a commission that is enforcing proportionality but rather the state court.  I’m not a big fan of relying on court intervention to produce fair maps.  This most often just produces uncertainty and instability, as we are now seeing in Ohio and likely Florida as well.

Commisions don't really consider competitve elections. Colorado tried to some degree but in the end  it didn't have enough votes because it was even more lol tier.


MI's commision had the option to draw a perfect Trump +0 to Biden +1 seat yet made it nearly double digit Biden. Not sure how exactly they helped competition in a neutral year.

I'm sure all of the "unsplit Ottawa County" people are very happy about GR-Muskegon

[lfromnj]

I wrote a book about this!

But to summarize, my answer is absolutely not!  Every state should adopt an independent commission.  

Despite grumblings from both parties, nonpartisan commissions have proven to be consistently able to draw fair maps that also promote competitive elections while simultaneously respecting other districting principles that are prioritized by each individual state.

The problem is not commissions, but the structures and principles to draw lines. In states like CA, D can game the system with fake R and I commissioners. In states where R has a clear geographic advantage like MI and OH, they enforce "proportionality" to gerrymander in D's favor.

Michigan’s new map (drawn by a new commission) is one of the fairest in the nation, including many competitive districts, while still remaining reasonably compact.

California’s map is very slightly biased toward the Democrats, but well within reason, and is certainly must less biased than the alternative.  Before adopting the a commission in 2010, California had one of the worst maps in the country, not because it was outrageously biased but rather because it was utterly uncompetitive.

As for Ohio, it isn’t a commission that is enforcing proportionality but rather the state court.  I’m not a big fan of relying on court intervention to produce fair maps.  This most often just produces uncertainty and instability, as we are now seeing in Ohio and likely Florida as well.

Commisions don't really consider competitve elections. Colorado tried to some degree but in the end  it didn't have enough votes because it was even more lol tier.


MI's commision had the option to draw a perfect Trump +0 to Biden +1 seat yet made it nearly double digit Biden. Not sure how exactly they helped competition in a neutral year.

I'm sure all of the "unsplit Ottawa County" people are very happy about GR-Muskegon

They still split Ottowa anyway into 2 seats or I think even 3 ?

[smoltchanov]

Absolutely no. I would abolish legislative redistricting instead (which almost always leads to hyperpartisan gerrymandering) and used independent redistricting commissions in all 50 states instead..

[politicallefty]

Of course not. I'd rather send all maps to the courts before I'd trust partisan legislators. Ideally, we have nonpartisan commissions with set standards. In terms of the House, some still states will have maps that tilt towards one party and others will have those tilt to the other. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world, but it would ideally all balance out in the end.

I would clarify that I don't think all commissions are created equal. I support something closer the California model which requires all parties to agree. I don't like the NJ or WA model that can pass a partisan map by having a tiebreaker on their side.

[lfromnj]

Of course not. I'd rather send all maps to the courts before I'd trust partisan legislators. Ideally, we have nonpartisan commissions with set standards. In terms of the House, some still states will have maps that tilt towards one party and others will have those tilt to the other. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world, but it would ideally all balance out in the end.

I would clarify that I don't think all commissions are created equal. I support something closer the California model which requires all parties to agree. I don't like the NJ or WA model that can pass a partisan map by having a tiebreaker on their side.

WA doesn't have a tiebreaker, just a middleman who helps negotiate . They don't have a vote.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Yes*
Just getting a California gerrymander alone would undo allot of Republican shenanigans. Unilateral disarmament remains stupid. All or nothing


*on the proviso that I would also establish them nationwide as well

[Aurelius]

No, but I'd allow state parties to have a role in picking their party's members of the commission to avoid situations like the fake Republicans on CA's commission.

[politicallefty]

Of course not. I'd rather send all maps to the courts before I'd trust partisan legislators. Ideally, we have nonpartisan commissions with set standards. In terms of the House, some still states will have maps that tilt towards one party and others will have those tilt to the other. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world, but it would ideally all balance out in the end.

I would clarify that I don't think all commissions are created equal. I support something closer the California model which requires all parties to agree. I don't like the NJ or WA model that can pass a partisan map by having a tiebreaker on their side.

WA doesn't have a tiebreaker, just a middleman who helps negotiate . They don't have a vote.

Splitting hairs, but fine. My point stands on NJ and I would also add AZ. I prefer larger commissions that have to operate on consensus as opposed to one side getting a winner-take-all light-gerrymander.

No, but I'd allow state parties to have a role in picking their party's members of the commission to avoid situations like the fake Republicans on CA's commission.

The problem is that your idea would lead to deadlock. If it were national Republicans choosing three or so commissioners, it'd probably be Gym Jordan, Elise Stefanik, and Josh Hawley.

These commissions do need to be revised and improved, but that's not the best way to do it.