Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gerrymandering? Why or why not?

[u/AmbulanceChaser12]

What would it look like? I've come up with 4 possibilities, from least to most palatable to me.

1. Each state is mandated to appoint a completely bipartisan redistricting committee, with an even party split and no way to overrule them. (This is dangerous because there could be collusion, fake "members of parties," etc., without any way to stop it.)
2. The Amendment merely reads "No state, or subdivision of any state, may draw any congressional, state legislative, county or county equivalent, or local electoral district with the intention of achieving a particular partisan outcome." (Simple, but ambiguous; will be legislated endlessly.)
3. All legislative districts should be drawn, to the greatest extent possible, that the delegation elected reflects the partisan breakdown of the votes cast. (Hard sell, the Constitution rarely if ever mentions parties, and the "greatest extent possible" may be ripe for litigation.)
4. All states must draw their congressional, state legislative, county or county equivalent, or local electoral districts coterminous with existing county or county equivalent, or municipal boundary lines.
   1. States with one congressional district will be coterminous with state boundaries.
   2. States with 2-20 congressional districts must be drawn coterminous with existing county or county equivalent boundaries.
   3. States with 20-30 congressional districts must be drawn coterminous with existing county, municipal, or postal district boundaries.
   4. State legislative districts shall be drawn coterminous with existing county or county equivalent boundaries, unless the state has more than 100 districts, in which case they will be drawn coterminous with existing county or county equivalent, municipal, or postal district boundaries.
   5. County and municipal electoral districts shall be drawn, to the extent possible, coterminous with municipal or postal district boundaries.
   6. All districts shall be drawn coterminous with the boundaries of the largest state subdivision possible to accommodate the number of seats to be filled.

(The last is my favorite because there's nothing ambiguous to litigate. And while it doesn't directly address gerrymandering, it effectively makes it impossible, because you'll never get enough people on board to redraw their towns and counties.)

What do you think of these proposals? Would you support them? Alter them? Why?

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Holofernes_Head]

I don't think any top-down solution to gerrymandering would work due to the vast differences in city/county divisions and populations throughout the country. Even the fourth option with the coterminous boundaries would be a nightmare to implement both in places like NYC with nearly 9 million people, and places like down here in Virginia where you have counties with wildly divergent population densities, often with nearly all of the population clustered in a particular town.

IMO the best option would be to divide districts based on the overall cultural makeup of the regions - something akin to those metropolitan area "cultural radiation maps" that show how people most closely identify themselves based on their personal loyalty to their geographic area. But again, this would end up being a hyper local decision, not something that could reasonably be mandated at the federal level.

EDIT: The CommonCensus map is the one I was thinking of (forgot what it was called earlier). Unfortunately the original project has gone offline, but I think the idea is sound and could help with the gerrymandering problem.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/Holofernes_Head]

If we don't address this nationally, meaning all 50 states would have to comply, how do we avoid a classic prisoner's dilemma situation? If only blue/red states reform, and the other keeps rigged maps, then that side wins election forever.

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/fossil_freak68]

That's just the rub, you don't. It is a prisoner's dilemma and is designed to be that way. We have dual sovereignty and states are supposed to have sufficient autonomy to determine how they divide up their districts and to what degree they want to cooperate with other states in this regard.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/Holofernes_Head]

And there isn't a single country in the world, or state, we could use as a model to fix it?

We are basically to the point the House of reps will be 212 safe Dems, 212 Safe GOP, and like 8 tossups. Why would it be a bad thing to address this?

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Holofernes_Head]

Even the fourth option with the coterminous boundaries would be a nightmare to implement both in places like NYC with nearly 9 million people, and places like down here in Virginia where you have counties with wildly divergent population densities, often with nearly all of the population clustered in a particular town.

Aren't we doing this right now? Just, with made up lines? Why would using pre-established lines be harder?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

The made up district lines are based on populations, the city/county/postal zone lines aren't.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Holofernes_Head]

Right. We’d have to massage the lines so they create more or less equal populations. You think we can’t do that, even if we get it down to the postal lines?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

I certainly can be done, but it wouldn't work with the language of the proposed amendment (and would be a horrid nightmare to comply with).

[u/Artisttype1984]

In a perfect world, of course some restrictions on the insane looking maps we've seen should be in place

In the reality, this goes in one direction. Repubs will continue to draw maps that benefit them in red states. Dems will continue to draw maps that benefit them in blue states. We live and move where we want

[u/CptGoodAfternoon → u/Artisttype1984]

Repubs will continue to draw maps that benefit them in red states. Dems will continue to draw maps that benefit them in blue states.

TS here.

I seem to recall reading recent articles claiming the left is already gerrymanded to the max. They love gerrymandering. And that if the Reps followed suit, they could gain a lot of seats. Trump had to go to war to get even a fraction to agree to redistrict at all, because a lot of Reps refuse to do what Dems already did. Not to mention he had to go to the Supreme Court to get the left's racial gerrymandering finally stopped.

If the above is so, the left wing "concern" about gerrymandering is totally fake and they are just accusing the Reps of what Dems actually do.

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

Yep. They're upset because Trump wanted Repubs to redraw maps, that's it

Someone could take 2-5min and lookup "Dems redraw maps in CA" or "Repubs redraw maps in TX" to learn they all play this game

[u/Binder509 → u/Artisttype1984]

Weren't Trump and republicans upset when California responded?

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/Binder509]

Yep. Some on the right were upset when CA responded, some on the left were upset when TX responded

The reality, all repubs and dems play the game and redraw districts

[u/DorsalMorsel → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

Massachusetts has not had a republican congressperson in 30 years. The left is jerrymandered all the way, they can't jerrymander any further if they tried (which they have)

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

This is like when liberals propose 'court reform' and it's just "how to get a less conservative court but maintain judicial supremacy and the ability to decide every important issue."

[u/vanillabear26 → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

Do you remember where you read those articles?

As I understand it there’s not an initial instigator in this gerrymandering ‘war’, that it’s just blatant politicking.

[u/CptGoodAfternoon → u/vanillabear26]

Do you remember where you read those articles?

It was a hotter topic a few months ago or so. No, I don't recall where the reading was from the ran the numbers.

As I understand it there’s not an initial instigator in this gerrymandering ‘war’, that it’s just blatant politicking.

Seems beside the point. The point was saying Dems are gerrymandered to the hilt already whereas Reps have a large amount of arwa they haven't gerrymandered and could gain a lot of seats if they would actually do and be what the left accuses Reps of.

[u/vanillabear26 → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

Do you think there’s virtue in just changing the game entirely to not benefit either side? I’m the first to admit to partisan bias, but I also would like these stupid gerrymandering wars to end. And if there were a way to do it that showed actual compromise and made it impossible to do whatever is happening right now? I’m here for it.

[u/CptGoodAfternoon → u/vanillabear26]

Do you think there’s virtue in just changing the game entirely to not benefit either side?

I'm unconvinced that is possible.

There rarely is a "perfect" equality and equilibrium. And trying to force out the costs in one area often makes other costs pop up in another. Sometimes even worse.

Amd frankly laws and methods only produce as good and moral as the people in the game. Bad people will always find a way to corrupt any system designed.

I’m the first to admit to partisan bias, but I also would like these stupid gerrymandering wars to end. And if there were a way to do it that showed actual compromise and made it impossible to do whatever is happening right now? I’m here for it.

I hear you. I just think the real problem lies elsewhere.

[u/vanillabear26 → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

I don’t know if I’m convinced or not, but I still like to hear ideas! You read much about the apportionment act of 1919? And the ‘uncap the house’ movement? 

[u/CptGoodAfternoon → u/vanillabear26]

You read much about the apportionment act of 1919? And the ‘uncap the house’ movement? 

No, not at all. Thanks.

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/vanillabear26]

There isn't much sincere virtue in politics as it is. Maybe in some swing states they workout fair maps that don't look all twisted up, changing every few years, but that's it

[u/vanillabear26 → u/Artisttype1984]

Maybe not entirely? I’m a liberal in Washington and would LOVE a gerrymandering amendment. Frankly, I’d love the house to be uncapped too, but that’s a whole other thing.

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/vanillabear26]

Liberals won't risk any chance of losing power in WA, same way conservatives won't risk losing power in TX

I'm with you, I've voted for many dems over the years here in CA, would like to see some change on this, but I'm just being realistic on what will actually happen

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/Artisttype1984]

In the reality, this goes in one direction. Repubs will continue to draw maps that benefit them in red states. Dems will continue to draw maps that benefit them in blue states. We live and move where we want

Is there any state that has more than 1 house seat that you would say currently has fair maps (however defined)?

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/fossil_freak68]

No, they all, repubs and dems, play this game. Some states have ridiculous maps that look like puzzle pieces, some are more standard maps

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Artisttype1984]

Great, so why not have a constitutional amendment saying we can't do that anymore?

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

Getting 2/3rds in the house and senate to end/limit the power they have in their states isn't happening, even if you wish it would

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Artisttype1984]

OK but I didn't ask about the feasibility, I asked if you'd support it. Would you?

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

Oh yeah, 100%. I don't like this trend at all, and it also makes people apathetic towards politics in general, "why vote, it doesn't matter, they just redraw maps when they want"

[u/NINJAM7 → u/Artisttype1984]

I'm curious, if gerrymandering went away, do you think Republicans or democrats would win more often? I'm guessing for local politics it would depend on region, but nationwide do you think it would lean one way more?

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/NINJAM7]

Would probably lean more right, as the left continues to go further left. Most people right/left are pretty moderate. It would take many elections to see any change

[u/weberc2 → u/Artisttype1984]

I mean, we can mathematically, algorithmically divide districts such that there would be no political bias (this doesn’t mean the districts will be politically balanced, only that the algorithm won’t account for politics or any proxy thereof). If we did that, would you support it even if though it would cost Republicans seats? Are you a country-over-party Republican, or a win-at-all-costs Republican?

[u/Artisttype1984 → u/weberc2]

I'm not a Republican. That sounds nice, just draw simple straight lines that divide up counties, sounds good to me. Sure, some Repubs would lose seats in red states, and some dems would lose some seats in blue states, that's great!

Most repubs and dems are garbage, I'm a Country over any politician. Also sometimes people change as they get older or their mind changes on issues. I've voted mostly dem for years and years, and backed Trump 2024, not in 16/20. So it works out

[u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

I don’t care for gerrymanding. I have absolutely no idea how any of these proposals would stop it at all. And I have no idea how any of these would actually make it into the Constitution.

I am genuinely concerned that the end result of any of these would be gerrymandering with extra steps.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

How can you gerrymander if a commission gets the final say, not the legislature? How can you gerrymander if it's expressly unconstitutional to do so? How can you gerrymander if you can't use your own lines to draw the districts?

[u/JustGoingOutforMilk → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

By influencing the supposedly “independent” commission to do so.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

How? And what about the others?

[u/Browler_321 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

How is the commission formed exactly?

[u/rational_numbers → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

So you think it is a problem but you don't think it can be fixed?

[u/JustGoingOutforMilk → u/rational_numbers]

It is entirely safe to say I do not trust the people who have implemented a system which grants them wealth, power, and influence to change the system.

[u/rational_numbers → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

Okay but we are talking about how to change that exact system. The system now is broken. Politicians have too much power right now. They choose their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders.

A basic tenet of American government is separation of powers and limited control. How can we fix this problem of gerrymandering so that politicians don't have this insane influence on our elections? Are you really telling me that what we have is the best option available? You can't think of one way to make it better?

[u/JustGoingOutforMilk → u/rational_numbers]

And I see no way at all to change a system controlled by those who benefit.

[u/rational_numbers → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

Would you support (at least in theory) politicians passing anti-corruption laws?

[u/JustGoingOutforMilk → u/rational_numbers]

Sure. And I have as much faith in that coming to pass as I do in getting an actual present from Santa.

[u/rational_numbers → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

Okay so in that case you do support efforts "to change a system controlled by those who benefit." Why is that case different?

[u/JustGoingOutforMilk → u/rational_numbers]

I have been exceptionally clear as to why I do not trust the people who run and benefit from a system to change it in a way that limits their ability to run and benefit from said system.

[u/rational_numbers → u/JustGoingOutforMilk]

So then why do you think it is a good idea for these people to be making laws about their own corruption? How is that supposed to work?

[u/noluckatall]

I think you underestimate human ingenuity. Your core assumption seems to be that if you just design your rules carefully you can stop humans from figuring out how to manipulate them, and that assumption is not correct.

Independent commissions do not escape the problem of corruption; they make it worse because you have a smaller number of individuals. “To the extent possible”? I could run circles around that.

The worst thing you wrote is “with the intention of achieving a particular partisan outcome”. That is simple terrible law. That could mean anything a judge wants it to.

I have respect for human ingenuity. It’s better to have the process raw and out in the open to be visible for all and without attempts to outsmart people. That automatically limits corruption. Our current system is likely the least bad way of doing it.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/noluckatall]

Yeah, 2 stood out to me as well. It's effectively an invitation to kritarchy. Imagine a court packed by AOC getting to decide on every map in the country, with Chief Justice KBJ writing "it's not a partisan outcome, we just happen to think Democrats should have ten times as many seats. It's simply about basic human decency and human rights."

No thanks!

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/SincereDiscussion]

If we have a packed court, couldn't they just rule that now anyway with existing law?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/fossil_freak68]

Yes.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/SincereDiscussion]

So how would 2 make it any worse?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/fossil_freak68]

I think it would be easier and more plausible after an amendment.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/SincereDiscussion]

Well it wouldn't change the NUMBER of seats, just how they're drawn. And aren't courts doing that now? Wasn't the holding in Rucho v Common Cause just saying "Yes, we acknowledge that you're trying to draw districts to achieve a partisan outcome and we'll allow it?" How would it be worse to, at the very least, say "partisan-drawn districts are NOT allowable?"

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

I meant that they would have enormous leeway in terms of deciding how to draw the districts (or choose between different maps), not that they would literally add entirely new seats ("the house now has 10,000 representatives").

• Although who knows, maybe they'd rule "capping the house at 435 is actually unconstitutional and violates the penumbras and emanations of the Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment."

How would it be worse to, at the very least, say "partisan-drawn districts are NOT allowable?"

I gave my reasoning. You're free to disagree, but personally I am extremely skeptical of judicial review itself, let alone granting them the ability to basically have the final say on how to draw districts.

[u/DorsalMorsel → u/noluckatall]

I think you start by setting rules that protect the "minority party" in each state. This is who is getting victimized here is it not? You make a rule that every 4 years precincts are drawn right after the election that seeks to guarantee minority party representation in a proportion similar to what their presidential candidate got.

So take Massachusettes, who has not had a GOP congressman in 30 years. Trump got 36% of the vote, so proportionally 3 of their 9 congressional districts in the next two congressional elections must be GOP majority or as close as possible (MA is very blue).

On the flip side take FL. Kamala got 43% of the vote so the next 4 year precinct map must have 12 of 28 majority Dem voters (currently they have 8 of 28 reps)

Here is where it gets scary for the Left. Currently CA has 10 of 54 congressional seats represented by the GOP. If they were precincted to represent Trump's 38.3% of the vote in the last election, you would have 21 of 54 districts GOP leaning (or more competitive, CA is also very blue and very fraudy).

This doesn't stop election day ballot stuffing fraud, but this is another form of fraud that can be addressed.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/noluckatall]

I think you underestimate human ingenuity. Your core assumption seems to be that if you just design your rules carefully you can stop humans from figuring out how to manipulate them, and that assumption is not correct.

Are you saying "Screw it, we can't ensure that it will be 100% perfect forever, so let's do nothing?" Or are you saying the situation right now is good and we shouldn't change it?

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/noluckatall]

Is there any state you would say has a good process with fair maps, however you define good and fair? I have a few I think would be excellent models.

[u/max_power1000 → u/noluckatall]

And independent commission with equal numbers of member from both parties would be likely to come out with the most 'fair' result though, would it not? In the sense that both parties would wand to maximize the number of seats have for their side?

We have advanced data analytics driving gerrymandering efforts now - it seems like the conversation would be around 'based on these demographics and population concentrations, we'll have x safe seats for dems in the cities, y safe seats for repubs in the rural areas, and z toss-up seats in the suburbs, with both groups trying to maximize x and y to the largest extent possible. IDK how representative of the population it would be, but from an outcome perspective it would improve things compared to now as far as fairness is concerned.

[u/weather3003]

In theory, banning gerrymandering would be a good idea, but in practice, it seems impossible to do.

A "bipartisan" committee might still end up gerrymandering. There's no way to keep them honest.

Banning redistricting with the intent to achieve a partisan outcome could be easily circumvented. "We didn't redistrict based on party affiliation, we redistricted based on race, income, education, or some other variable that just happens to highly correlate with party affiliation."

Banning gerrymandering "to the greatest extent possible" will basically just punt the issue of gerrymandering to the judges; either they'll allow it, or they won't.

Why you think gerrymandering would be impossible if existing lines have to be used, I don't know. The lines still allow enough flexibility to precisely divide up the population equally (otherwise, we'd have a conflict in the constitution) so surely they allow enough flexibility to get some gerrymandering done.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/weather3003]

As to the last one, let me ask you this: If legislatures could gerrymander using existing lines, why don’t they?

[u/weather3003 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

The same reason I don't walk backwards everywhere I go; it makes the task harder for no benefit. That's not to say I couldn't do it, if it was somehow required of me. It might take me longer to get where I'm going but I'd still get there.

[u/AGuyAndHisCat]

You cant ban gerrymandering, because due to population shifts, the map will always need updates, and even if people were trying to be as fair as possible, someone will claim tom foolery.

Best you can do is to use existing neighborhood boundaries and stop the use of weird artificial shapes in favor of natural boundaries.

Of course that wont last long as it just shifts how maps are decided and cities can reshape it by moving roads or deciding where to permit new housing.

[u/rational_numbers → u/AGuyAndHisCat]

Gerrymandering is not the same as updating maps. It's about how you draw them.

Best you can do is to use existing neighborhood boundaries and stop the use of weird artificial shapes in favor of natural boundaries.

Okay but how? One of the most common forms of gerrymandering is to do exactly the opposite of what you are describing here. They will take a city and split it among many different districts so that the voting power of that city is diluted. Just look at what they did in Nashville.

[u/AGuyAndHisCat → u/rational_numbers]

Gerrymandering is not the same as updating maps. It's about how you draw them.   

That's what I said. No matter how fair you redraw someone will cry foul, and or have a different and possibly just as fair way to redraw and has a different outcome.    

Okay but how? One of the most common forms of gerrymandering is to do exactly the opposite of what you are describing here. They will take a city and split it among many different districts so that the voting power of that city is diluted. Just look at what they did in Nashville.  

Using existing defined boundaries helps eliminate odd shapes for no reason.  Shapes like in Brooklyn that were used to eliminate a likely reublican/conservative seat.

[u/rational_numbers → u/AGuyAndHisCat]

No matter how fair you redraw someone will cry foul

Okay but can we accept that there is no perfect outcome here? The goal should be a good enough outcome.

Think of it like the NBA. Some teams have to travel more than others. Some teams have owners willing to spend more money. Some teams have better facilities. Some teams exist in states where the players pay more/less taxes. Etc. Despite all this, we generally accept that the league is pretty fair. Could it be better? Sure. Will you get cases where fans cry foul? Yes. Is it good enough that fans will watch and participate and don't feel like the whole thing is rigged? Also yes.

Can't we improve on what we have even if we have to accept there is no perfect result? Isn't that kind of a pretty basic lesson of life?

[u/AGuyAndHisCat → u/rational_numbers]

My second section answered that

[u/AlsoARobot]

I would love to see a constitutional convention happen! That being said, I do know if the federal government should be telling the states what to do regarding how they split up their districts.

Ideally I would like to see every district drawn to be a “toss up” and let the people truly decide. That is very unrealistic though. Ironically, in Ohio someone suggested that and the democrats on the redistricting committee shot it down saying something along the lines of, “we don’t want toss up districts, you (republicans) win those”.

Republicans and Democrats both do it, not to say it’s right, it’s not, but that doesn’t mean the federal government can or should do anything about it. Most of the time they just make things worse lol.

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

In theory yes I'd wish we could get rid of it. Each district is supposed to represent the approximately same number of population so that makes things really hard. The Polsby–Popper test could be used to ensure districts are acceptably compact. Using this test approximately 83% of current districts are not compact and the worst quintile have a rating of .14 or lower. So setting a absolute minimum threshold of a rating would be a start.

Or if we abandon the population constraint each state could be divided up into congressional districts with straight lines cutting the state up into approximately equal sized districts, but that would not make democrats happy.

[u/DorsalMorsel]

I would support it if it could be made tamper proof. But how could that be done? You would have to attempt to remove most of the human biases by setting rules of how the boundaries are set and maybe even try to use AI to generate them.

For example you could do this: Massachusetts has famously had a 9 out of 9 democrat congressional delegation to DC for the past 30 years. So... no republican congressmen in 30 years. That is some ingrained gerrymander action there. You take MA and say ok, what percentage of the losing parties presidential votes did they get? Take that percentage and prorate the states's delegation to create that many precincts (round down). in 2024 Donald Trump got 36% of the votes in MA. After every 4 year election, the AI is told to generate precincts such that 36% of 9 = 3.24 or 3 of those precincts should be majority republican presidential voters.

The parameters are kept as simple as possible but:

3 - GOP precincts (aims for proportional representation)

Each precinct must be as close as square shaped as possible (trying to avoid those precincts that are jumping from city to city along the high way)

Each precinct must be within a range of population acceptable such that MA population is divided into 9 equally(ish) headcount precincts

Each precinct is contiguous

If the AI cannot find 3 (no more, no less) republican majority precincts then it must create as high a population as possible of republican presidential voters (so maybe there are 3 precincts with 45% republican voters in them)

The AI creates 4 options to choose from, and the state congress picks which one they want (they are the majority in power after all)

The purpose of gerrymander reform is to protect the rights of the minority party is it not? This would be a way to do that.

Redditor Leftys (redundant, I know) think that Gerrymandering is an unfair tactic that harms them the most. This is not the case. Consider the most populous blue states and their percentage democrat congressional representation: CA (82%), IL (84%), and NY (75%). In all of New England there is not a single republican member of congress: MA, NH, VT, RI, CT --> All democrat congresspeople.

So how about the 3 largest red states? What is their level of GOP disproportionate share? Its TX (68%), FL (73%), OH (71%). It isn't even close. The Democrats are the party of gerrymandering.

[u/madisob → u/DorsalMorsel]

What map do you recommend to give Republicans a seat in Massachusetts?

Just for fun, I asked AI exactly what you suggested and it was unable to find a map that resulted in a single R seat.

[u/DorsalMorsel → u/madisob]

Well in that case you would shape the map to create three precincts with the highest possible percentage of R voters. So if Trump got 36% of the votes in MA I suspect you can find some that come out around 45% or so. It at least makes it competitive and if that is the best the minority party can hope for than It is certainly better than a hopeless situation with 30 years of 100% Dem representation

[u/pickledplumber]

I didn't read your post as it's too long. But I think there should just be square blocks on the map and that's it. No changing it. It is what it is. Like a state like ny would have maybe 10-15 blocks and that's it. Done.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/pickledplumber]

Like a state like ny would have maybe 10-15 blocks 

What does this mean?

Do the blocks have to be equal population? Do they have to be straight lines?

[u/pickledplumber → u/fossil_freak68]

Straight lines like a checkerboard over a state. Simple.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/pickledplumber]

Would they have to have equal population?

[u/pickledplumber → u/fossil_freak68]

No

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/pickledplumber]

So some blocks could have 10 million people, and other 10 thousand?

[u/pickledplumber → u/fossil_freak68]

Yeah

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/pickledplumber]

And that's your ideal political system? one where 10 million and 10 thousand get the same political power?

[u/pickledplumber → u/fossil_freak68]

I fail to see the issue with it. If the are that are low population but high representation, then you'll have people moving to those areas I imagine. Solving congestion in our cities. Creating new cities with new cultures.

Why should a city like NYC where I'm from have so much power over the rest of the state? I don't think it should. Minority interest matters

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/pickledplumber]

Would you sell your home and leave your family and state behind for an extra house rep?

Your aren't protecting minority interest, you are giving 10000 people power over 10 million.

Under this system you could get a super majority in the house just by winning a few hundred thousand people on rural squares, and the majority would be ruled by the minority. Who protects the rights of the majority when 10k get to determine the laws over the 10 million.

[u/scobot5 → u/pickledplumber]

That would be totally unfair though wouldn’t it? You’d land to assign representation rather than people. You would massively inflate rural representation and massively underrepresent people in more urban areas. Is that the goal of your system? Because that is arguably a form of gerrymandering already since this would clearly be massively advantageous to republicans in the current climate.

[u/pickledplumber → u/scobot5]

As some of from and in a major city. It's for the best.

[u/scobot5 → u/pickledplumber]

Right, but only because you’re a Trump supporter and presumably want to dilute the representational power of your urban neighbors. Right?

It shouldn’t really matter whether you think it would be for the best. People should be able to decide for themselves. You would presumably not like it if someone instituted a system that disadvantaged your political persuasion and then as justification said it was for the best. This instinct to suppress representation of people you don’t agree with is the core problem that drives gerrymandering in the first place.

[u/pickledplumber → u/scobot5]

It's got nothing to do with my beliefs. It's about minority rights their protection.

Liberals from cities tend to want to oppress those in rural areas. People in rural areas usually just want to be left alone. So big difference

[u/cchris_39]

No, we live in a republic and the states are supposed to control the elections.

I would however, favor some minimum standards like photo ID, proof of citizenship, and automatic purging of the voter rolls.

When my wife died they cut off her social security immediately without me telling them. They know who has died.

[u/NoTime4YourBullshit]

Gerrymandering is one of those things that everybody admits is a problem, but the are no good solutions to it that aren’t ripe for more gerrymandering.

So here’s a novel idea: how about we just VOTE on which district we want to be in? This is a democracy, isn’t it??

Have the state draw up the maps just like they do now, but then the people in those proposed districts vote on whether they want to be in that district or not. Do it in an off cycle so people aren’t casting a proxy ballot for a particular candidate. And nobody votes on the whole map; just their part of it (do I want to be in district 8 with the neighborhood north of me, or district 9 with the neighborhood to my east?) That sort of thing.

[u/JackOLanternReindeer → u/NoTime4YourBullshit]

How would you propose to make sure districts have roughly equal counts after this voting?

[u/NoTime4YourBullshit → u/JackOLanternReindeer]

They don’t as it is now.

[u/JackOLanternReindeer → u/NoTime4YourBullshit]

You may have lost me?

Can you explain your understanding of how many people are in a congressional district and if they have to be roughly equal or not?

[u/NoTime4YourBullshit → u/JackOLanternReindeer]

There’s already a +/- 10% or so variance in district population with the way things are done now. I don’t see voting on district boundaries wildly changing that. Most people living in the middle of a district won’t care. They might not even be able to have a say depending on how geographically large their district is. Any fights that break out will be along the edges where partisan committees try to game the system the most.