Currently, the redistricting of congressional boundaries is controlled by state legislature every ten years. Gerrymandering is the redrawing of districts with the intent of benefiting a political party. It is most often implemented by state political parties with the intent of marginalizing districts of voters who represent the minority party. To gain extra seats, the incumbent party will redraw voting districts so that voters of the minority party will be grouped into smaller districts with less seats. Critics of gerrymandering say these practices allow incumbent representatives to choose their voters instead of voters choosing them. Proponents say that drawing districts is a privilege of the ruling party and have little effect on the popularity of their policies or candidates.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
Yes
@9F79FYZ7mos7MO
Top Agreement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE7FFBzwLnM
Say if a committee of Republicans were tasked to draw electoral districts, they would obviously draw them to lopside the results in their favor, right? The same goes for Democrats, and that is why gerrymandering actually steals citizens' rights rather than empower them.
@ElectionCamila7mos7MO
Absolutely, both Democrats and Republicans, if given the chance, could use redistricting to their advantage. A clear instance of this was in North Carolina in 2010, when Republicans drew the map in such a way that they won 9 of 13 congressional seats, even though the popular vote was almost evenly split. The independent commission would ideally prevent such manipulation from happening. How do you think we can ensure that the commission truly remains non-partisan?
@9F86S5G7mos7MO
By overseeing the current districting map of Texas, a state that puts state government officials in charge of districting, you can see that major cities such as Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, and El Paso have more spliced districts than other cities. These cities are known that have the highest concentration of minorities and have the most divided districts. After taking all of this into consideration, one can come to the conclusion that there is a correlation between district sizing and cities with a high minority concentration.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, gerrymandering allows officials to more effectively represent the interests of their constituency
@GrimbjornDemocrat 7mos7MO
Top Disagreement
Gerrymandering is a process controlled by the powers in control, to keep control. Not independent or reflective of the actual political climate of constituents.
@9F79FYZ7mos7MO
Gerrymandering can be easily rigged by either party to take away the representation of the opposition.
@9F5DHJHIndependent8mos8MO
Gerrymandering only serves the party to maintain power for the party in power and makes it most difficult to oust someone who is corrupt or give a fair chance for an opposing viewpoint in alliance with the populace to be expressed in its representation
@9F53SR48mos8MO
All gerrymandering does is clump groups who vote for a party together so the other party can rise to power, there are no benefits.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, there is no better alternative
@9FL3QZVRepublican7mos7MO
The argument that there is no better alternative to gerrymandering is often put forth by those who believe that gerrymandering, despite its flaws, is the most practical or effective way to draw electoral districts. However, there are strong counterarguments that support the idea that better alternatives to gerrymandering do exist:
Independent Redistricting Commissions: Many countries and regions have implemented independent redistricting commissions that are designed to be politically neutral. These commissions are composed of nonpartisan individuals who work to draw district boundaries fairly… Read more
@9BVLJ4512mos12MO
Yes, but I would prefer to abolish gerrymandering.
@5F5TD6G3yrs3Y
Yes, gerrymandering has become racist
@9F4WBK48mos8MO
No, I'd prefer the Shortest Split-line method
@9C43LHB11mos11MO
I'd prefer the Shortest Split-line method.
@9D52QQ29mos9MO
The problem is, any party would be capable of claiming to be "non-partisan" and over time lead to a majority of people who are heavily partisan and have no record of where they stood or what they've done making lines in favor of their stance. The current system should be changed to emphasize more on letting the people know who was involved in the redrawing by name, What they wanted to draw the lines as, and how they divided the districts. That way anyone who would abuse a power as important as aiding the elections, can be held accountable, and made to answer for why the lines are not as neutral as physically possible.
@DoveHaileyLibertarian9mos9MO
I completely agree with your perspective. Transparency is indeed a key ingredient in maintaining the integrity of any democratic process. For instance, in the UK, the redistricting process is handled by independent boundary commissions. They publish their proposals for public consultation, giving everyone a chance to see and comment on the proposed changes. This allows for a level of accountability and transparency.
@9C96WVY11mos11MO
Implement the Shortest Split-line method
@8KG2HJC4yrs4Y
@9DM76848mos8MO
No, these commissions just end up being partisan
@9CN4FDR10mos10MO
Yes, only if it is truly non-partisan.
@98YSXJF1yr1Y
I don’t know what this is.
@9C64NJB11mos11MO
Shortest Split-line method
@9C2ZMDN11mos11MO
@9BWMNGVLibertarian12mos12MO
Congressional districts should be abolished and replaced with a different voting system (like proportional, ranked choice, or others).
@separnell71yr1Y
No, on the technicality that it is impossible to truly obtain a non-partisan commission.
@8GGCCP34yrs4Y
I don't have enough information to vote.
@8DH5HPY4yrs4Y
@9FQJK9P7mos7MO
I support gerrymandering when it's my party in power and oppose it when its the other party in power... And so does everyone else.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Gerrymandering is just bad in general. Some people actually have values that aren't tied to our own personal self-interests...
@9C7GSC611mos11MO
No, however each district should be drawn based on population only..
@9C69K6811mos11MO
Abolish the practice of gerrymandering.
@8FV4KP94yrs4Y
No, and there is no such thing as non-partisan.
@8FLB36T4yrs4Y
No, I don't believe you could find a truly non-partisan commission
@8J336Y64yrs4Y
No. Non-partisan commissions are less likely to exist than pet unicorns.
@8HTW3KX4yrs4Y
yes, parties will always draw maps to benefit them while holding power
@8HSZFX74yrs4Y
Eliminate congressional districts (or make districts larger) and install at-large ranked choice voting.
@8F3MHJ94yrs4Y
Yes, gerrymandering is horribly popular right now. It is undemocratic, and a threat to government of the people.
@9LPQZZM2 days2D
Yes, but it should be overseen by a political appointee and placed under a federal department of elections
@9LP36P6Independent3 days3D
A commission isn’t making a difference in my area. I live in an area that always has gerrymandering lawsuits pending.
If Electoral votes were based on the popular votes, gerrymandering would no longer have the leverage it does now.
Laws should require districts to be drawn by population and square miles and must be within a certain number of miles from the district’s center.
@9LM2RLBIndependent6 days6D
No, it should be controlled by the governors of each state because there is no such thing and a non-partisan commission.
@9LDWGY22wks2W
There should be only square districts across the nation that cannot be changed to prevent gerrymandering
@9LCL6L43wks3W
No, a so-called independent and non-partisan commission could be both skewed by outside influence (lobbying or bribing) and partisan. Any other alternative would likely by preferable.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
