The politicians pick their voters
The New York Times has a great editorial -- along with a cool interactive map -- showing just how sneaky the redistricting process has been in New York.
Mapmaking in Albany is a dark art form designed to make absolutely certain that incumbents in the majority party are safe from electoral competition (a k a democracy).The North Country, according to the Times' treatment, has been ground zero for some of the most awkward dodges -- including the use of prisoners (who can't vote) to pad the population in state Senator Betty Little's district.
One of the most egregious examples, though, is the 51st Senate District, which sneaks up into the North Country by way of Herkimer County.
That district is so convoluted that it's hard to imagine how anyone could argue that it exists for any reason other than the pleasure of politicians.
The Times is calling for a non-partisan panel to be created to handle redistricting in 2012. This panel would also shape congressional redistricting -- deciding the fate of our NY-20 and NY-23 House seats.
What do you think? Should politicians get to draw the political map? Comment below.
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/12/2009 02:38:00 PM
16 Comments
16 Comments:
I like that idea. Redistricting should not be in the hands of the politicians. I propose that the panel be made of those who ran for office and were not elected (or their designees).
I sort of like the elephant shaped and indian pointing a gun shaped 20th and 23rd districts. Think we can come up with a donkey shaped district?
The Times says that prisoners should be counted where they leave and not in prison. Um I thought if you were a prisoner you live in prison.
Just checked the pop. requirements needed to constitute a federal congressional district. It is roughly 100k people per district. It's stating the obvious, but the population north of the Mohawk River valley (Syracuse, Oneida, Rome, Utica, Schenectady)is sparse. Are there 100,000 of us up here in Watertown, Plattsburgh and all places in between?
If we do comprise around 100k in pop., would it make sense if the area I've outlined, north of the Mohawk Valley, be made into one congressional district? The North Country District with North Country concerns? It would be a heck of a lot easier on the Representative.
Frank,
I'm not sure where you're getting your information but the size of a congressional district (population wise) is approximately 650,000 people. At 100k we'd have a House of Reps w/ 2800 members. I'd check your source.
This story is no surprise and while I'd love to see a nonpartisan commission draw the boundaries for state and congressional districts a) there's little hope that it will ever happen in NY given the power of political parties, and b) even w/ redrawing more "natural" boundaries it won't necessarily result in greater competition across a majority of state assembly or senate districts. Most are dominated by one party or the other so redrawing won't substantially change the picture. The most recent study I saw on this subject, I think it was published by the Rockefeller Institute, suggested that around a dozen seats would me made more competitive (I might be off a little on the number). Hardly a tidal wave of change.
JPM
Gerrymandering lives on! I don't know if there's a perfect way to draw those lines. I would put far more trust in a non-partisan (if here is such a thing anymore) group than leaving it to politicians.
Convicts should not be counted- period. Once they've paid their debt, fine, but till then. Movements to get them voting rights, along with illegal aliens, are political gerrymandering at it's worst.
I doubt we'll get redistricting out of the hands of politicians short of "prying it from their cold, dead hands." However, any student of plane geometry could suggest a plan to limit an overly-partisan outcome. All gerrymandered districts have one feature in common: a low ratio of area to circumference. By legislating that districts may not be configured in a way where any individual district exceeds a certain ratio of area to circumference, you can eliminate the snakier extremes. Where you set that value would determine how much room you leave for partisan hijinks.
Anon. We are both correct. My numbers came from a govt site. The number 100k is the minimum needed for a Congressional District. The Constitution originally created 65 seats in the House with a minimum of 30,000 population per district.
Today's avg district has 650,00 people. Nevada's 3rd has 960,000 (the most populous district). The ideal population is 200,000 per disctrict.
By 2040 the avg for each district will reach 900,000!
There is research going on now looking into expanding the House of Reps by another 40 members.
If we think we have a creative jigsaw puzzle of districts now...
Great Britain, with kess than 1/4 US population has about 200 more MPs ian the House of Commons, about 100,000 per MP. Hard to say if they do better representing their smaller districts than US congressmen...my own view is that 435 congressmen is about enough.
Frank,
If NY or any other state drew a district w/ 100K & other districts that were larger even by as little as 10%, it would violate the Constitution. Read Baker v.Carr (1960) it prohibits redistricting where people in the same state do not have the same voting power. I'm sure you've heard of the saying "one person, one vote" - it stems from the Baker decision.
In Nevada the district you mention is larger because of in-migration not because it possesed that population in 2000 and lawmakers drew less populus districts around it. Again, you need to check your facts.
If what you're suggesting is true, then we'd have state legislatures either packing or cracking districts the way the old southern states (or NY for that matter) used to do to urban areas to limit their influence.
The only way districts can be of significantly different populations and still be constitutional include are, one - states that have only one Member of Congress. Wyoming's population is around 400000 but Charles Rangle's dist in the Bronx is around 650k. This isn't unconstitutional because each state gets at least one member in the House. Two, in the case of the Senate there's always going to be unequal representation because representation isn't based on population.
Last thing - by stating an ideal number 200k per/dist, your injecting a normative claim into an empirical discussion. Robert Dahl suggested that the ideal is 20K, he's taught politics at Yale for a few decades and knows a thing or two about democracy -but this doesn't mean it's plausible or even recommended.
Anon. Thanks for publishing this somewhat bulky information. I agree with what you say and I am aware of everything you stated, having read this info elsewhere.
I just didn't have the patience to lay it all out as you have done here.
The numbers I quote are not made up out of thin air. The info comes from the U.S. Census bureau and the House of Reps.
P.S. I am not one who believes that I have all the facts. I love living each day because I always learn something new. It keeps me humble and makes me grateful for my fellow mankind.
An offshoot of this thread for the St Lawrence Co residents of long memory- does anyone remember why and when the Co Board of Legislators was formed? A more ineffective group is hard to imagine. I've never actually seen, heard from or spoken to my legislator whose home district doesn't even border my town.
That's not exactly the representation I desire.
Good Luck getting that power away from politicians. If you want to see how it is done, just study what Tom DeLay did in Texas to ensure that his party would stay in power. He is the best i have ever seen at redistricting. Truly a Master.
bret, prisoners shouldn't count? the Constitution mandates that they are counted. That part of the article is just the elitist attitude of the NYT which wants to see what little influence upstate has diminished further.
Anon 6:41- It's dishonest to count them as residents. Do we count those people staying at motels and colleges too? Should we do the census in the summer and try and count all the people at their camps too?
Common sense tells me it's wrong to count them. That doen't mean it will change, but that's how I feel about it.
Dale Hobson's suggestion is simple and I think it would be effective. Setting a maximum ratio of length of edge to enclosed space would constrain gerrymandering.
Post a Comment
<< Home