Here's a thing. The Democrats have won the popular vote in the Presidential election 5 times out of the last 6. There are two ways the Republicans could choose to try and address that problem. One would be to try and reach out to a broader demographic so as to give themselves a greater chance of winning and the other would be to try and manipulate the rules to let them win even without a popular majority. There does seem to be a certain weight of evidence to suggest that the latter option is the one that's being attempted. I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of voter ID laws, which we've covered ad nauseum here, but I think we can all agree that whether you can justify them or not, the main reason they're being pushed so hard by Republicans is because they calculate that it will hit the Democratic vote harder. Republicans also have greater incentive to gerrymander district boundaries right now because their core vote is smaller. Democrats actually won more votes in the Congressional election last year but ended up with less seats. That suggests that the boundaries favour Republican candidates, which in turn suggests that Republicans have been more active lately in the gerrymandering process. This current idea ties into the same narrative. We're not seeing a push for this to be adopted across the board, but instead seeing a push for it in certain states that usually vote Democrat. It all adds up to what can easily be portrayed as a conspiracy.

I'm quite sure that there are equally unscrupulous people in the Democratic Party, and this is what worries me. If this kind of tactic becomes accepted practice it could easily lead to a horribly corrupted polity. This is a dangerous path that the Republicans have chosen to tread. I hope that it gets shelved.

Sass's analysis is spot-on.

Well, both parties have and do indulge in gerrymandering. It's an inevitable consequence of the politicisation of bureaucracy (and that has been a feature of the US for over a hundred years). As well as one party doing it to stifle the other, there's the practice of both parties conveniently agreeing a scheme that entrenches the positions of incumbents. Third parties have a tough enough position as it is, without the practice.

Generally, I would support a move that goes from winner-takes-all in each state for Presidential elections, to a more representative one, but the real issue is that despite it being a Federal election, you have State rules for it. Meaning that it differs from State to State how the election is run, including potentially how EC delegates are apportioned. Ideally, you'd have a Presidential election more along the lines of many other democratic countries, in which it is total votes that count, but if in the first ballot no-one has 50%+1 of the vote, there's a run off between the top two. But hey, that would mean change and messing with the holy Constitution, so fat chance.

So, if there were moves in all 50 states to copy Maine and Nebraska and apportion in a more representative way, I think that would make sense. However, to target the large states that are leaning Democratic, which would surely make it harder for Democrat candidates to win strikes me as cynical and unfair. It would be just as bad to target the large Republican-leaning states.

On voter ID, we've had the debate over and over, and I'm not sure we are going to get anywhere. On gerrymandering I can't see that either party is innocent (and as much as freeman might like to believe that the Dems aren't/wouldn't be as bad if the position was reversed, I can't see it) but the system is set up to allow such practices to flourish. On the EC, freeman does have a point.

Did you all see the Times article on this topic from this weekend:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/03/sunday-review/imbalance-of-power.html?ref=sunday

It's an editorial, but it does use some good data and a great graphic. In short, Gerrymandering does occur, but not everywhere, both Dems and Reps use it, but Republicans are better at it.

Well according to the chart there were six states with a severe imbalance between the popular vote and representation in Congress that favored Republicans and one that favored Democrats. Pretty big difference.

By the way, it was five conservative justices who decided that gerrymandering claims are not subject to judicial review. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Wonder why it was that five conservatives voted to reverse precedent and declare that gerrymanders are not subject to judicial review? Could it be that they saw gerrymanders as being a net benefit to conservatives/republicans?

could be ... or perhaps they honestly read the law that way? You are one of our representative attorneys. How does it read to you?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 80018.html

An interesting essay on voter fraud by a democratic historian.

My grandmother Mary Dolan died in 1940. But she voted Democratic for the next 10 years. An election bureau official came to our door one time and asked if Mrs. Dolan was still living in our house. "She's upstairs taking a nap," I replied. Satisfied, he left.

Thousands of other ghosts cast similar ballots every Election Day in Jersey City. Another technique was the use of "floaters," tough Irishmen imported from New York who voted five, six and even 10 times at various polling places.

Equally effective was cash-per-vote. On more than one Election Day, my father called the ward's chief bookmaker to tell him: "I need 10 grand by one o'clock." He always got it, and his ward had a formidable Democratic majority when the polls closed.

Other times, as the clock ticked into the wee hours, word would often arrive in the polling places that the dirty rotten stinking WASP Protestant Republicans had built up a commanding lead in South Jersey, where "Nucky" Johnson (currently being immortalized on TV in HBO's "Boardwalk Empire") had a small Republican machine in Atlantic City.

By dawn, tens of thousands of hitherto unknown Jersey City ballots would be counted and another Democratic governor or senator would be in office, and the Democratic presidential candidate would benefit as well. Things in Chicago were no different, Boss Hague would remark after returning from one of his frequent visits.

I don't want to claim voter fraud is a huge issue but it is not a huge issue and it is most certainly not a one party issue but it does happen and is very easily fixed. But here we have a documented problem that has an easy fix, an incredibly easy fix at that (requiring ID) yet the cry from our lefty friends is that this is simply an attempt to disenfranchise poor Democrats? Isn't it possibly instead them trying to ignore voter fraud in order to keep a few votes themselves?

What's that saying in Chicago (a Democrat stronghold)?
...Vote Early and Vote Often!

tom

an incredibly easy fix at that (requiring ID)

Although I'm all for proper identification being required to vote....one shouldn't presume its easy to get ID....
Here's a dozen stories that say it can be difficult. And expensive...
And certainly that can effectively mean some people are being subjected to a specific tax to vote. Since they get along fine without the ID for the rest of their needs.
http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046

sample"

Gloria Cuttino
Gloria who is 61 was born in Summerville, South Carolina and moved to Philadelphia at a young age. Ms. Cuttino's mother died when she was sixteen, leaving Ms. Cuttino alone to care for her three younger brothers and sisters. Ms. Cuttino raised four children of her own, one of whom is a Philadelphia police officer. Prior to the photo ID law going into affect she has been trying to get her birth certificate from South Carolina and has told her they have no birth record. Through the help of a pro bono lawyer, she learned that the only way to now get a "delayed" birth certificate is to seek census and other records, which will cost approximately $100, and as well as hire an attorney in South Carolina to petition the court. Ms. Cuttino will not be able to vote in November.

More to the point, how can you be sure ID will stop fraud? Do you have no fraudulent documentation issues?

Ajyway, the thing I note is that there has been gerrymandering of Congressional Districts in somw States that then combines with the proposal to apportion EC delegates using them. So in Virginia, using the 2012 voting figures, the Romney would have got most of the delegation despite having less than half of the vote.

Aure, winner takes all by state can result in odd results, but to apply this to the current boundaties in selected states is clearly designed to game the system.

And how can you be sure that new gun laws will stop gun violence.

Oh sorry, wrong forum and different standard...

danivon wrote:Well, both parties have and do indulge in gerrymandering. It's an inevitable consequence of the politicisation of bureaucracy (and that has been a feature of the US for over a hundred years).

Try over 200 years. The term comes from Eldbridge Gerry's redistricting map of Massachusetts in 1812.

danivon wrote:, but the real issue is that despite it being a Federal election, you have State rules for it. Meaning that it differs from State to State how the election is run, including potentially how EC delegates are apportioned

This was actually discussed during the Constitutional Convention. The reason is it was done that way was because each state would be establishing election laws for its own officials. It was felt that creating a Federal standard that was different then a possible state standard would create too much confusion in years when both state and federal office were being voted on.


I also do not think the most recent election is a good indicator of an overwhelming benefit of gerrymandering for the Republicans. FIrst of all it doesn't take into account the legal requirement for the creation of minority majority districts or the fact there was a higher turnout in certain demographics than typical due to it being a Presidential election year and depressed turn out in other demographics due to a lackluster candidate. Let's look to the outcome in the 2014 election.

so we have the right to vote and requiring some form of id constitutes a tax in your opinion? Then how can you support our right to bear arms requiring expensive background checks and licenses and so on? You assume ID must be a government issued photo ID (as was what Pennsylvania wanted) but while that would be one option, other types of ID could certainly be part of any proposal, you simply want to refuse the requirement of any id whatsoever

Funny too, this coming from a Canadian who protests American voting laws
In Canada you must have ID, It's ok to have to prove who you are up there but not down here???
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... dex&lang=e

[sarcasm] Perhaps it is because Canada is a homogeneous population and there is no discrimination possible with requiring ID? [/sarcasm]