Gerrymandering: Democrats should...

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Which side do you take here?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Not gerrymander at the state or local level and join some kind of anti-gerrymandering compact at the federal level which would only kick in after state govs representing the vast majority of EVs signed on.

HR1 would probably be a better solution, but the filibuster isn't going.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs are gonna max out seats in FL, GA and TX anyways it's on 7 seat anyways, that gives to eliminate House districts in Cali, NY, MI, IL, PA , Fitzpatrick is going more D due to sports, IL Rodney Davis is gone, that leaves NY, Cuomo is gonna eliminate R districts and Cali Indy commission is gonna eliminate 25, 48, 49 and those Districts can go D anyways, given way to similar map we started from in , that's why Rs shouldn't be so boastful as to say House is Safe R in 2022

2010/R Govs controlled Redistricting, 2022 D Govs favor redistricting

[Neptunium]

Drawing gerrymanders to counter Republican one only cure the symptoms, not the disease.

Besides it make Dem no better than Republican since they both do the dirty work.

I think pass law which enforce compact redistricting is better idea which effect a permanent cure.

[Neptunium]

The Republican Party will gerrymander wherever it can. We should accept this is a current part of American politics, distasteful as it is, and aggressively use it - with the long term goal of a bipartisan agreement to end it everywhere. Trying to take the moral high ground here is like prioritizing the popular vote over a winning map to protest the electoral college.

Stop enabling minority rule because exercising power feels mean.

If so Democrat maybe enjoy the long time enjoying delegation disadvantage since Republican for now have full control of significantly more populous state.

Pass a low banning it can end this traverse of politics. 

[It’s so Joever]

Drawing gerrymanders to counter Republican one only cure the symptoms, not the disease.

Besides it make Dem no better than Republican since they both do the dirty work.

I think pass law which enforce compact redistricting is better idea which effect a permanent cure.

I know you are not used to US politics, but do you not understand how much the GOP will sabotage any attempts to pass such reforms?
They have blocked redistricting reforms across the country to keep power. The few states with independent commissions are almost all Democratic controlled.

[7,052,770]

If Republicans won't agree to 1, it has to be 2, sadly.

[SWE]

Either have ironclad written down laws to prevent either side from doing it or Option 2. Anything in between is idiotic

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs are gonna gerrymander TX and FL and GA anyways now that D's lost the TX and FL state legislative races now, that's why Rs are on this forum making Safe R House comments but together they only account for 7 seats and D's can eliminate some R seats in Cali, NY and IL to make up for, the Rs aren't gonna take out D's incumbents like they did in 2020

[UncleSam]

One of Biden's first acts as president should be to reach out to Republicans re. Gerrymandering. I think it's a huge winning issue and there are frankly lots of moderate Rs who would support common sense reforms on this.

Common sense reforms does NOT include 'independent' redistricting commissions btw. Those are just gerrymandering where the people in charge aren't even elected by the voters.

What we need are lines drawn solely by computers. Draw the most compact maps that minimize municipality / county cuts, and which follow the VRA. There's no reason this should be difficult at all and it would save taxpayers everywhere millions and millions of tax dollars.

I honestly think Rs would go for that. My bigger question actually is whether the Democratic caucus would go along with it - they're disproportionately from hard-left states and many of their survival is contingent on gerrymanders surviving in their home states. This is true to some extent for Republicans as well, but less so.

[S019]

Option 2 (sane)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

option 2

[Nyvin]

One of Biden's first acts as president should be to reach out to Republicans re. Gerrymandering. I think it's a huge winning issue and there are frankly lots of moderate Rs who would support common sense reforms on this.

Common sense reforms does NOT include 'independent' redistricting commissions btw. Those are just gerrymandering where the people in charge aren't even elected by the voters.

What we need are lines drawn solely by computers. Draw the most compact maps that minimize municipality / county cuts, and which follow the VRA. There's no reason this should be difficult at all and it would save taxpayers everywhere millions and millions of tax dollars.

I honestly think Rs would go for that. My bigger question actually is whether the Democratic caucus would go along with it - they're disproportionately from hard-left states and many of their survival is contingent on gerrymanders surviving in their home states. This is true to some extent for Republicans as well, but less so.

What...?   What are you talking about?   There's only like, two states where Democratic Gerrymanders make any difference at all (Illinois, Maryland).   Literally everywhere else the lines were either drawn by Republicans or the Democratic seats are usually so safe it makes no difference whatsoever what map is drawn.   

You're not going to make Jayapal vulnerable with any new map in Washington.

[UncleSam]

One of Biden's first acts as president should be to reach out to Republicans re. Gerrymandering. I think it's a huge winning issue and there are frankly lots of moderate Rs who would support common sense reforms on this.

Common sense reforms does NOT include 'independent' redistricting commissions btw. Those are just gerrymandering where the people in charge aren't even elected by the voters.

What we need are lines drawn solely by computers. Draw the most compact maps that minimize municipality / county cuts, and which follow the VRA. There's no reason this should be difficult at all and it would save taxpayers everywhere millions and millions of tax dollars.

I honestly think Rs would go for that. My bigger question actually is whether the Democratic caucus would go along with it - they're disproportionately from hard-left states and many of their survival is contingent on gerrymanders surviving in their home states. This is true to some extent for Republicans as well, but less so.

What...?   What are you talking about?   There's only like, two states where Democratic Gerrymanders make any difference at all (Illinois, Maryland).   Literally everywhere else the lines were either drawn by Republicans or the Democratic seats are usually so safe it makes no difference whatsoever what map is drawn.   

You're not going to make Jayapal vulnerable with any new map in Washington.

What about Cheri Bustos? Or Delgado?

Maryland, New York, California...there are plenty of Dem incumbents who could stand to have less favorable districts with this change. Sure the inner city Dems won’t care but what about the suburban ones, or the Tim Ryans of the world? They’d be close to DoA in some cases and they’d sure as hell fight hard against this behind the scenes.

That’s the problem with Congress. Everyone in it was elected under the current system so they have little incentive to change it.

[lfromnj]

One of Biden's first acts as president should be to reach out to Republicans re. Gerrymandering. I think it's a huge winning issue and there are frankly lots of moderate Rs who would support common sense reforms on this.

Common sense reforms does NOT include 'independent' redistricting commissions btw. Those are just gerrymandering where the people in charge aren't even elected by the voters.

What we need are lines drawn solely by computers. Draw the most compact maps that minimize municipality / county cuts, and which follow the VRA. There's no reason this should be difficult at all and it would save taxpayers everywhere millions and millions of tax dollars.

I honestly think Rs would go for that. My bigger question actually is whether the Democratic caucus would go along with it - they're disproportionately from hard-left states and many of their survival is contingent on gerrymanders surviving in their home states. This is true to some extent for Republicans as well, but less so.

What...?   What are you talking about?   There's only like, two states where Democratic Gerrymanders make any difference at all (Illinois, Maryland).   Literally everywhere else the lines were either drawn by Republicans or the Democratic seats are usually so safe it makes no difference whatsoever what map is drawn.  

You're not going to make Jayapal vulnerable with any new map in Washington.

What about Cheri Bustos? Or Delgado?

Maryland, New York, California...there are plenty of Dem incumbents who could stand to have less favorable districts with this change. Sure the inner city Dems won’t care but what about the suburban ones, or the Tim Ryans of the world? They’d be close to DoA in some cases and they’d sure as hell fight hard against this behind the scenes.

That’s the problem with Congress. Everyone in it was elected under the current system so they have little incentive to change it.

Nah the Democrats do want independent commisons, its that in general they are better at rigging these commisions although the AZ GOP did it too.

[Del Tachi]

Lol, go for #2 - it'll be cute!

Republicans won just about every race where redistricting was a stake.  Republicans have trifectas (or the equivalent) in the redistricting battlegrounds of TX, FL, GA, NC and OH.  GOP legislatures in TN, UT, NE, KS and MO can also easily cut Democratic seats in those states.  Democrats won't even have complete control states like MN or or PA.

[lfromnj]

Lol, go for #2 - it'll be cute!

Republicans won just about every race where redistricting was a stake.  Republicans have trifectas (or the equivalent) in the redistricting battlegrounds of TX, FL, GA, NC and OH.  GOP legislatures in TN, UT, NE, KS and MO can also easily cut Democratic seats in those states.

And Democrats got NY after 5 decades which was the 2nd biggest one at stake unless one seriously believed that the FL house was winnable lol.Also Dems rigged the CA commission pretty hardly. Michigan is probably similar although the people on the Michigan commission to say at the very least are low info. California is high info Democratic hacks.

[UncleSam]

One of Biden's first acts as president should be to reach out to Republicans re. Gerrymandering. I think it's a huge winning issue and there are frankly lots of moderate Rs who would support common sense reforms on this.

Common sense reforms does NOT include 'independent' redistricting commissions btw. Those are just gerrymandering where the people in charge aren't even elected by the voters.

What we need are lines drawn solely by computers. Draw the most compact maps that minimize municipality / county cuts, and which follow the VRA. There's no reason this should be difficult at all and it would save taxpayers everywhere millions and millions of tax dollars.

I honestly think Rs would go for that. My bigger question actually is whether the Democratic caucus would go along with it - they're disproportionately from hard-left states and many of their survival is contingent on gerrymanders surviving in their home states. This is true to some extent for Republicans as well, but less so.

What...?   What are you talking about?   There's only like, two states where Democratic Gerrymanders make any difference at all (Illinois, Maryland).   Literally everywhere else the lines were either drawn by Republicans or the Democratic seats are usually so safe it makes no difference whatsoever what map is drawn.  

You're not going to make Jayapal vulnerable with any new map in Washington.

What about Cheri Bustos? Or Delgado?

Maryland, New York, California...there are plenty of Dem incumbents who could stand to have less favorable districts with this change. Sure the inner city Dems won’t care but what about the suburban ones, or the Tim Ryans of the world? They’d be close to DoA in some cases and they’d sure as hell fight hard against this behind the scenes.

That’s the problem with Congress. Everyone in it was elected under the current system so they have little incentive to change it.

Nah the Democrats do want independent commisons, its that in general they are better at rigging these commisions although the AZ GOP did it too.

Lol of course they WANT that because ‘independent’ commissions are inherently unfair and even less democratic than gerrymandering lol, at least the people gerrymandering were elected by somebody at some point. Rs would never go for that though and they definitely shouldn’t.

It’s really just a question of if Ds want mutual disarmament or not. If they do, what I suggested is the way to go. If they don’t, then aiming for independent commissions that allow Dems to bypass R state legislatures and draw gerrymanders of their own anyway is obviously the way to go.

[Del Tachi]

Lol, go for #2 - it'll be cute!

Republicans won just about every race where redistricting was a stake.  Republicans have trifectas (or the equivalent) in the redistricting battlegrounds of TX, FL, GA, NC and OH.  GOP legislatures in TN, UT, NE, KS and MO can also easily cut Democratic seats in those states.

And Democrats got NY after 5 decades which was the 2nd biggest one at stake unless one seriously believed that the FL house was winnable lol.Also Dems rigged the CA commission pretty hardly.

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

[Mr.Phips]

Lol, go for #2 - it'll be cute!

Republicans won just about every race where redistricting was a stake.  Republicans have trifectas (or the equivalent) in the redistricting battlegrounds of TX, FL, GA, NC and OH.  GOP legislatures in TN, UT, NE, KS and MO can also easily cut Democratic seats in those states.

And Democrats got NY after 5 decades which was the 2nd biggest one at stake unless one seriously believed that the FL house was winnable lol.Also Dems rigged the CA commission pretty hardly.

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

20-5 is very easy to do and makes pretty much every Dem seat wave proof.

[Del Tachi]

Lol, go for #2 - it'll be cute!

Republicans won just about every race where redistricting was a stake.  Republicans have trifectas (or the equivalent) in the redistricting battlegrounds of TX, FL, GA, NC and OH.  GOP legislatures in TN, UT, NE, KS and MO can also easily cut Democratic seats in those states.

And Democrats got NY after 5 decades which was the 2nd biggest one at stake unless one seriously believed that the FL house was winnable lol.Also Dems rigged the CA commission pretty hardly.

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

20-5 is very easy to do and makes pretty much every Dem seat wave proof.

Sure, but that's only a loss of 2 GOP seats

So the gains D's can draw for themselves in NY are going to be entirely offset by Republicans axing Cooper and Cleaver, lol. 

After that, there's still going to be complete GOP control in TX, FL, GA, OH, AZ and IA while D governors will have to compromise in MI, WI, MN and PA, among others.

[Mr.Phips]

Lol, go for #2 - it'll be cute!

Republicans won just about every race where redistricting was a stake.  Republicans have trifectas (or the equivalent) in the redistricting battlegrounds of TX, FL, GA, NC and OH.  GOP legislatures in TN, UT, NE, KS and MO can also easily cut Democratic seats in those states.

And Democrats got NY after 5 decades which was the 2nd biggest one at stake unless one seriously believed that the FL house was winnable lol.Also Dems rigged the CA commission pretty hardly.

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

20-5 is very easy to do and makes pretty much every Dem seat wave proof.

Sure, but that's only a loss of 2 GOP seats

So the gains D's can draw for themselves in NY are going to be entirely offset by Republicans axing Cooper and Cleaver, lol.  

After that, there's still going to be complete GOP control in TX, FL, GA, OH, AZ and IA while D governors will have to compromise in MI, WI, MN and PA, among others.

AZ is drawn by a commission as is Iowa, where Dems only have one seat.  NY will be about protecting the seats that Dems have and drawing out two Republicans.  Anything more than that will backfire.  Illinois will be about protecting Bustos and Underwood while eliminating a Republican.  Nevada will be about making NV-03 and NV-04 safer.  Dems are generally going be looking at defending incumbents.

If Republicans do eliminate Cleaver and Cooper, Dems will probably draw a 8-0 map in Maryland.

I’m guessing Republicans net about six seats from the redistricting process, but at the same time the Dem floor in the House rises to around 205-210 due to Dem incumbents being made safer.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

As others have said, Dems should gerrymander what states they can while also proposing national redistricting reform and switching to a fair nationally applicable system as soon as Republicans are willing to stop blocking it. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In particular though, I would emphasize that in what states Dems can gerrymander, the gerrymanders should be as absurdly and ostentatiously aggressive as possible. For example, Maryland should be 8-0, New York should be 25-0 or 26-0, with spaghetti strings going from Manhattan to rural western New York, and in California the legislature/governor should abolish the commission (for congress, but not state level via constitutional amendment if necessary) and draw a 52-0 or 53-0 map. There is no downside to going for shutout maps like 25-0, 52-0, etc, because if they get struck down by the Supreme Court, that would be a good thing because it would set a judicial precedent against partisan gerrymandering. So that would be a feature, not a bug. In addition, Dems should do mid-decade redistricting whenever necessary to keep up the 25-0/52-0 type maps. If anything would make the GOP reconsider its stance on gerrymandering, it would be e.g. Kevin McCarthy having no seat to run in, because his district goes into the middle of Los Angeles or San Francisco.

In practice, if Dems send unanimous delegations from states like CA, NY, MD, and IL (perhaps you may need to concede 1 GOP seat in IL to go along with a bunch of Chicago tentacle districts), that will probably be more than Republicans can really overcome by gerrymandering a larger number of other states which are generally smaller. This is because there is a lot more flexibility enabled in gerrymandering larger states than smaller ones, in addition to the effects of the VRA limiting how far the GOP can go in states like GA/TX.

Also, there is not really a real downside to risking "dummymanders" nearly as much as many people seem to think. The reason for this is that for control of the house, what matters is the partisanship of the tipping point seat. It makes little difference whether you have 180 or 185 seats after a strong GOP year. In either case, Republicans have a majority and do whatever they want, so who cares if you have 180 or 185 or 175 seats? Those are all effectively the same. But it makes a major difference whether or not you get over the tipping point to have a majority in the House. So the name of the game in gerrymandering should be pushing the tipping point seat as far as possible to the left. dummymandering was more of a problem in the past when partisanship was less dominant in voting and "candidate quality" and "incumbency" mattered more. But these days, you can simply draw a strong enough Dem District and basically no Republican incumbent will end up holding it in any neutral or good Dem year, even if they somehow manage to win it in some sort of massive GOP wave year. And the second reason why dummymandering is not a real risk is you can always re-adjust the seats with mid-decade redistricting.

Common sense reforms does NOT include 'independent' redistricting commissions btw. Those are just gerrymandering where the people in charge aren't even elected by the voters.

What we need are lines drawn solely by computers. Draw the most compact maps that minimize municipality / county cuts, and which follow the VRA. There's no reason this should be difficult at all and it would save taxpayers everywhere millions and millions of tax dollars.

Honestly I basically agree with this. It is pretty clear that commissions or any system where humans are responsible for making arbitrary judgments based on what "feels" right or "seems" like a community of interest etc are vulnerable to manipulation. Ideally this is what we should be pushing for for the reformed national system, where there is a simple and mathematically unambiguous way to draw districts. However, if you draw districts in that way, it may result in significant disproportionalities, at least in some states, due to geographical issues (e.g. states like PA and OH being "naturally" in favor of GOP, and states like TX and CA being "naturally" in favor of Dems). Those disproportionalities may "balance out," but they also may not. So for that reason, something should be included in the system to ensure basic proportionality. There are various possible ways to do that, like including some leveling seats, or potentially multi-member districts (imagine a Republican elected from a Manhattan multi-member district and a Dem elected from rural Kansas, getting some more of those sorts of people in the system could also potentially lead to more cooperation and incentives for genuine bipartisanship among the parties). Also, the system of primary elections should be re-thought. Overall, political parties and the US electoral/constitutional system do not work well together and the only way to get functional and competent governance is to address that in some way.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

You can do 23-2 in New York even without spaghetti-strip districts from Manhattan, with none of the Dem districts anything below D+4 or D+5 or so. If you do spaghetti-strips from Manhattan you can go 25-0 (or 26-0 if it ends up with 26 districts). You can do similarly in other states like IL/CA. Overall if you get to no-holds-barred extreme blood sport gerrymandering, Dems have more to gain in states like IL/NY/CA than Republicans do in all the little GOP-controlled rinky-dink states combined. CA alone could be a Dem gain of 10-11 seats, which pretty much offsets alone everything the GOP can do anywhere else (at least as long as the VRA remains and limits how much the GOP can do).

[lfromnj]

CA requires a ballot measure to repeal it. Anyway RN its a win win for CA dems, they get a gerrymander but they can say its the pinnacle of redistricting.