What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Josquius]

True but when you are splitting a state in half you have a unique opportunity to do so.

Leaving aside the issue that the Texas state legislature would not be the body drawing the new state line, how does one split a purple state into two parts so that the splitting party gains an electoral advantage in state-wide races?

For the dems I'd imagine a natural split would do the trick. You'd have urban Texas and cowboy Texas.

If the intention is to give two republican states though... You'd have to really be careful to split the cities between the two I guess?

[Valmy]

True but when you are splitting a state in half you have a unique opportunity to do so.

Leaving aside the issue that the Texas state legislature would not be the body drawing the new state line, how does one split a purple state into two parts so that the splitting party gains an electoral advantage in state-wide races?

Well the trick that is used is to split the urban areas into lots of rural dominated districts. Probably hard to do with a state

But hey it all comes down to how you group the cities together.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm honestly perplexed, not trying to play a gag on youse guys.

Say for the sake of argument Texas is 51/49 GOP/Dem.  How do you split that electorate in two in such a way to disadvantage the Dems? 

Seems to me the absolute best the GOP could hope for is two cloned states that split 51/49.

[alfred russel]

A problem with "no gerrymandering" is there isn't an organizing principle in US politics to move to.

For example, if you were to say, "the 435 house of rep districts should be drawn so that the partisan balance of each district reflects that of the whole" the result would be a democratic advantage in the house of 435 - 0 (as democrats had the edge in overall house voting - a 51/49 edge for the democrats in house voting would be matched in every district).

If a first principle is the urban core areas have their own districts, those will be hyper democratic and be an effective republican gerrymander. If the first principle is rural districts are created, those will generally be hyper republican and an effective democratic gerrymander.

You can develop more neutral rules than those (and of course people have), but the problem is there isn't a consensus on what the principle should be and everyone is gaming the outcome.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm honestly perplexed, not trying to play a gag on youse guys.

Say for the sake of argument Texas is 51/49 GOP/Dem.  How do you split that electorate in two in such a way to disadvantage the Dems? 

Seems to me the absolute best the GOP could hope for is two cloned states that split 51/49.

It's closer to 55-45 really. Cornyn got 61-36 in 2014.

[Malthus]

A problem with "no gerrymandering" is there isn't an organizing principle in US politics to move to.

For example, if you were to say, "the 435 house of rep districts should be drawn so that the partisan balance of each district reflects that of the whole" the result would be a democratic advantage in the house of 435 - 0 (as democrats had the edge in overall house voting - a 51/49 edge for the democrats in house voting would be matched in every district).

If a first principle is the urban core areas have their own districts, those will be hyper democratic and be an effective republican gerrymander. If the first principle is rural districts are created, those will generally be hyper republican and an effective democratic gerrymander.

You can develop more neutral rules than those (and of course people have), but the problem is there isn't a consensus on what the principle should be and everyone is gaming the outcome.

The solution, it seems to me, would be to hand over the task to a politically non-partisan election tribunal working with agreed rules - as is done in other countries.

In Canada for example, the federal electoral districts are re-drawn every decade by a set of commissions, to take into consideration population changes.

Each province has its own boundary commission, working independently, and drawn from allegedly non-partisan individuals - usually retired judges and senior civil servants. The provinces have a number of seats assigned to them based on a particular formula. The districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, though they can depart from that in special social and geographic circumstances. The boundaries are subject to public hearings and debate in parliament, but ultimately the decisions are made by these commissions.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e

The advantage is that this type of system appears to curtail gerrymandering. The system was adopted in the 1960s because, prior to that, gerrymandering had been a serious problem in Canada.

Now obviously the US is not Canada, and the constitutional rights of states to govern their own process is different. However, states could adopt a similar solution if they wanted to.

[Valmy]

It's closer to 55-45 really. Cornyn got 61-36 in 2014.

Yeah it was 53-44 vote in the House races. And yeah it was much larger just a short time ago. The trends are good at least...if you are on the blue team anyway.

[alfred russel]

The solution, it seems to me, would be to hand over the task to a politically non-partisan election tribunal working with agreed rules - as is done in other countries.

In Canada for example, the federal electoral districts are re-drawn every decade by a set of commissions, to take into consideration population changes.

Each province has its own boundary commission, working independently, and drawn from allegedly non-partisan individuals - usually retired judges and senior civil servants. The provinces have a number of seats assigned to them based on a particular formula. The districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, though they can depart from that in special social and geographic circumstances. The boundaries are subject to public hearings and debate in parliament, but ultimately the decisions are made by these commissions.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e

The advantage is that this type of system appears to curtail gerrymandering. The system was adopted in the 1960s because, prior to that, gerrymandering had been a serious problem in Canada.

Now obviously the US is not Canada, and the constitutional rights of states to govern their own process is different. However, states could adopt a similar solution if they wanted to.

Of course, you are overlooking my point: there is no agreed set of rules. And at this point, both sides have gamed the potential rules out and know what the outcomes will be.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course, you are overlooking my point: there is no agreed set of rules. And at this point, both sides have gamed the potential rules out and know what the outcomes will be.

I think most people know a weird shaped district when they see one.

[Malthus]

The solution, it seems to me, would be to hand over the task to a politically non-partisan election tribunal working with agreed rules - as is done in other countries.

In Canada for example, the federal electoral districts are re-drawn every decade by a set of commissions, to take into consideration population changes.

Each province has its own boundary commission, working independently, and drawn from allegedly non-partisan individuals - usually retired judges and senior civil servants. The provinces have a number of seats assigned to them based on a particular formula. The districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, though they can depart from that in special social and geographic circumstances. The boundaries are subject to public hearings and debate in parliament, but ultimately the decisions are made by these commissions.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e

The advantage is that this type of system appears to curtail gerrymandering. The system was adopted in the 1960s because, prior to that, gerrymandering had been a serious problem in Canada.

Now obviously the US is not Canada, and the constitutional rights of states to govern their own process is different. However, states could adopt a similar solution if they wanted to.

Of course, you are overlooking my point: there is no agreed set of rules. And at this point, both sides have gamed the potential rules out and know what the outcomes will be.

There aren't any right now, but there could be.

I rather suspect the impossibility of finding a solution lies in the fact that each side, when it gets into power, now decides to perpetuate the system, hoping to remain in power. It is a failure of political will, not from some inherent impossibility. It would be easy enough to establish neutral rules (others have done so) if the motivation existed.

[Barrister]

The problem on both sides in the US (Both-sides-ism! ) is far too much short-term thinking.  Yes, if you gerry-mander when you're in power you can "lock-in" your advantage... for awhile.  If you refuse to consider a judicial nomination you can "take" a USSC seat.  If you blow up the fillibuster or pack the Supreme court you can get to take advantage of your momentary position of power.

But these things never last.  In particular with gerry-mandering - depending on how aggressively you do it if there's even just a moderate shift in public opinion the gerry-mander can suddenly work against you.

[PDH]

California draws the districts with a group of 5 Dems, 5 Repubs, and 4 non-affiliated.  It seems to work fairly well, in a state where the overwhelming blue coast could swamp the eastern counties with wildly drawn districts there is instead regional and mostly compact districts that seem to represent the makeup of the populace.

[Valmy]

The problem on both sides in the US (Both-sides-ism! ) is far too much short-term thinking.  Yes, if you gerry-mander when you're in power you can "lock-in" your advantage... for awhile.  If you refuse to consider a judicial nomination you can "take" a USSC seat.  If you blow up the fillibuster or pack the Supreme court you can get to take advantage of your momentary position of power.

But these things never last.  In particular with gerry-mandering - depending on how aggressively you do it if there's even just a moderate shift in public opinion the gerry-mander can suddenly work against you.

I think this kind of played itself out in this last election in Texas

The Republicans shifted the vote in their direction a few percentage points in 2020 from 2018 and the result? They lost one State Senate Seat and traded singular flips in the State House. Somehow they managed to lose ground despite winning a larger percentage. The same thing with the US House of Representatives in Texas. They shifted the vote in their favor and yet gained no seats. Status Quo of the Democrats at the gates remains...for now. We will see how they redraw things now.

[The Larch]

A possible rule could be "no splitting counties amongst different districts" as well. Districts must include only entire counties, that leaves vastly less room for gerrymandering.

[alfred russel]

There aren't any right now, but there could be.

I rather suspect the impossibility of finding a solution lies in the fact that each side, when it gets into power, now decides to perpetuate the system, hoping to remain in power. It is a failure of political will, not from some inherent impossibility. It would be easy enough to establish neutral rules (others have done so) if the motivation existed.

It isn't just the majority taking advantage of the minority. A very notorious example is republicans supporting majority minority districts, which elements of the democrats also support. Obviously grouping very democratic demographics (generally black people) in a handful of districts is how you would want to gerrymander to create a republican map, but a lot of minorities support it as a way to get their own representation.

Also politicians are drawing their own boundaries, directly or indirectly. This is a very passionate subject for them. It seems unlikely they will turn it over to a third party voluntarily. It also limits the amount of effective gerrymandering -- super safe districts are theoretically counterproductive to the party in charge, but they still get drawn from time to time.