I can't seem to find information on why the new districts being defined are not just optimizing for Red? The intent is that the new districts are determined by some neutral algorithm (and it will be Blue / Red based that population) - but are they? What is the process being used?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
I believe that the majority in districts are going to turn Red- because as you said- that’s how it actually is
The answer I’m seeking is the substantiation that these are fairly determined districts. Who decided the new boundaries? Do we know that they are impartially determined? What is the objective proof they are impartial?
Rules are different for each state.
It seems like something that should be consistent?
It go's back to the old days,when the states had a lot of power over the federal govt.
We need more of that. When we passed the 17th amendment,the states are no longer represented in congress. Things have really gone to shit since then.
I see your point. States do need more power. I was thinking only about federal elections…(durg, so myopic)
Actually, there is no need for impartiality. SCOTUS determined districts COULD be drawn based on party affiliation. Strange as that may sound. But racial districts are unconstitutional.
One of the other respondents (u/taQo) gave great info on the rules/guides used to determine districts, and what you’ve also pointed out was abundantly clear in those
I’m surprised by it and most of me thinks it is problematic; I also see that a representative should be repping for more than 51% of their constituents.
I’m learning a ton today, you guys are great!!
Some states have employed schemes that attempt to use impartial non-partial rules. CA did one of those under Schwarzenegger; it took all that partisan bickering off the table. Until last June, that is.
Oh, that sounds like it was an agreeable process for everyone!