Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan

[dps]

Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.

[DGuller]

Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.

Or, more likely, the party that would have to do away with gerrymandering is the same party that is in charge of gerrymandering.

[Ideologue]

The real question is why we even have states.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously　wrong.

Because both parties would have to agree to set up such a body, and neither party wants to (except in a very few boring states).

[Josquius]

Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously　wrong.

Because both parties would have to agree to set up such a body, and neither party wants to (except in a very few boring states).

Surely doing away with some of the dirtyness and corruption in politics should be a big vote winner?

[MadImmortalMan]

Lots of places in the US do have that. Penn is controlled by Teamsters though, and it easier for them to control things the way it is.

[PJL]

A politically neutral electoral body would only remove the gerrymandering by one iteration. You'd just end up with the parties altering the framework on how to divide seats in such a way as to benefit the party in power.

[Barrister]

Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.

But it's a very useful fiction.

Sure, everyone has a political background in such a thing.  But they have at the very least pay lip service to being politically neutral, and remove the most obvious political influence from the process.

I can tell you we have nothing close to the level of gerrymandering that goes on in the US up here.

[Sheilbh]

I can tell you we have nothing close to the level of gerrymandering that goes on in the US up here.

Same.  The government's cutting the number of MPs and the Boundary Commission's just released its draft proposals for England.  Because it's England it inevitably favours the Tories but three Tory cabinet ministers (including the Chancellor of the Exchequer), a Lib Dem minister and Nick Clegg are all set to lose their seats.  Obviously their parties'll make sure they can find a new safe seat (I don't know how possible this is for Clegg because I think all of Sheffield's seats are looking marginal at best for a Lib Dem).

But I don't think there's been any real worries about gerrymandering in years.  The closest I can think of was maybe Westminster Council in the 80s?

Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.

I think you can.  But I also don't think that's an excuse to make something, effectively, corrupt.  I think a number of states have established a bipartisan system of doing this with some way of avoiding gerrymandering.  Can't remember the procedure, but I think California was the latest.

[garbon]

The real question is why we even have states.

To demarcate the evolved from the heathen masses.

[jimmy olsen]

Wisconsin is now contemplating the same thing.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/10/12/inevitable_wisconsin_republicans_mull_pennsylvania_style_elector.html

[Neil]

The real question is why we even have states.

To demarcate the evolved from the heathen masses.

Everything evolves.  What are you, some kind of creationist weirdo?

[Razgovory]

The real question is why we even have states.

To demarcate the evolved from the heathen masses.

Don't you come from San Fran?   That's like ground zero of filthy heathen masses.

[dps]

Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously　wrong.

Because both parties would have to agree to set up such a body, and neither party wants to (except in a very few boring states).

Surely doing away with some of the dirtyness and corruption in politics should be a big vote winner?

The dirtiest secret in politics is that most voters don't really want clean government.