I love Utah politics

[BlueK]

The lifetime appointment problem has always been there, regardless of gerrymandering. In any given year, only a small % of incumbents have competitive races. California has an independent commission draw its boundaries. Of its 53 house districts only 9 are considered competitive according to Real Clear Politics.

Also, all 4 Utah house districts are currently Republican. Mia Love's seat is considered a toss-up. 1/4 in Gerrymandered Utah vs 9/53 in independent California. Term limits is the only way to stop the lifetime appointments.

The gerrymandering creates it and makes it far worse than it should be.

Term limits would do nothing but train the electorate to be even lazier. Hey, if I don't like my rep, I don't even have to vote now because the system will take care of it after a few terms.

And about your examples, Utah and CA are not swing states, so of course the party that is more prevalent will have more reps.

Now look at the true purple states in the US. The representation should be close to 50/50 in those. But in all of them it's lopsided toward one side. What helps the GOP today is going to hurt it tomorrow when the other side is in charge. Lines should not be drawn to support one party or the other. They should be drawn in ways that make sense. This really isn't a partisan issue.

[wapiti]

For me, it isn't about "can I justify this" or "could I win the argument in court if I was called on it". So, while you're right and perhaps in a court of law you could win a gerrymandering argument by saying "Hey! Everyone still get's to vote. Constitution doesn't say how these boundaries have to be drawn up." - that is just doesn't sit well with me.

Divide up areas in a way that is logical and that makes sense. Not in a way that looks at voting history of certain neighborhoods and communities to marginalize their voice and representation in government.

I'm not a fan of Gerrymandering. Though I recognize that in Utah it benefits me more often than not. Actually - it probably benefits me on a national scale, but I suspect it does more harm than good as far as state government is concerned.

Valid points. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Dividing into areas that are logical and make sense? In who's opinion? I prefer elected officials that we can hold accountable vs an "independent commission" that answers to no one.

[BlueK]

Valid points. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Dividing into areas that are logical and make sense? In who's opinion? I prefer elected officials that we can hold accountable vs an "independent commission" that answers to no one.

The independent commission as is on the ballot in Utah does answer to the legislature and the governor.

What makes sense? Well, it's not logical for you and your neighbor across the street to be represented by two different people. You're likely to have similar interests. The Founders created states and congressional districts precisely for that reason. Why not just draw the line to mostly cross in places where no one lives instead? What doesn't make sense is the party in charge decided that "your type" of person shouldn't be represented, so we'll draw up arbitrary lines to divide you from your neighbors to water down your influence.

Real example from the state where I live:
The city of Austin is a little "weird" compared to the rural counties that surround it. If there was a congressional district that covered most of the people in that city it would help the democrats and even libertarians more than it would the republicans. Can't have that, so let's cut it up into six different districts that include large areas outside the city so the GOP gets 6/6 instead of 5/6. Even the much larger city of Dallas doesn't get covered by that many districts. It's a blatant partisan attempt to keep even one democrat out of the House even though they're the majority in a place like Austin. I may vehemently disagree with the political opinions of the typical Austin resident, but it's un-American to say that person is so vile we're going to do everything we can to ensure they don't get someone to represent them who might share the same ideas.

[wapiti]

The gerrymandering creates it and makes it far worse than it should be.

Term limits would do nothing but train the electorate to be even lazier. Hey, if I don't like my rep, I don't even have to vote now because the system will take care of it after a few terms.

And about your examples, Utah and CA are not swing states, so of course the party that is more prevalent will have more reps.

Now look at the true purple states in the US. The representation should be close to 50/50 in those. But in all of them it's lopsided toward one side. What helps the GOP today is going to hurt it tomorrow when the other side is in charge. Lines should not be drawn to support one party or the other. They should be drawn in ways that make sense.

I think you have the red state/blue state/purple state thing wrong. Urban districts are blue, rural districts are red. Gerrymandering doesn't consolidate power, it swings close districts from leaning one way to leaning the other. For example, in Utah, the gerrymandering effect swung one district from leaning blue to leaning red. The 3 red districts are actually slightly more competitive. So your point about gerrymandering creating lifetime seats isn't valid in Utah. One district is competitive. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. I'm guessing that most states are similar.

[BlueK]

I think you have the red state/blue state/purple state thing wrong. Urban districts are blue, rural districts are red. Gerrymandering doesn't consolidate power, it swings close districts from leaning one way to leaning the other. For example, in Utah, the gerrymandering effect swung one district from leaning blue to leaning red. The 3 red districts are actually slightly more competitive. So your point about gerrymandering creating lifetime seats isn't valid in Utah. One district is competitive. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. I'm guessing that most states are similar.

the purpose of it is to eliminate swing districts.

[wapiti]

the purpose of it is to eliminate swing districts.

Interesting. The house was under democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Now its about to flip for the 4th time since. But gerrymandering is eliminating swing districts?

[Eddie]

Valid points. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Dividing into areas that are logical and make sense? In who's opinion? I prefer elected officials that we can hold accountable vs an "independent commission" that answers to no one.

I think that's the point. When you gerrymander a district so that the majority of the constituency is of one political leaning or another - it doesn't hold the elected official accountable.

It is EXTREMELY rare for a challenger to come from within the same party. So gerrymandering leaves voters with few choices. You don't get centrist or moderate candidates that have to appeal to both sides. You get extremists - which means whoever is on the other side really isn't an option.

[wapiti]

I think that's the point. When you gerrymander a district so that the majority of the constituency is of one political leaning or another - it doesn't hold the elected official accountable.

It is EXTREMELY rare for a challenger to come from within the same party. So gerrymandering leaves voters with few choices. You don't get centrist or moderate candidates that have to appeal to both sides. You get extremists - which means whoever is on the other side really isn't an option.

What Prop 1 envisions is a district for Salt Lake County. That would remove blue votes from the other three districts, turning them darker red. The Salt Lake County district, presumably district 4, would go from a lean red, to a solid blue. I doubt any of the 4 districts would be competitive.

In a state that regularly votes 70%+ for the republican presidential candidate, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the democrats deserve one of our house seats.

[frank ryan]

Interesting. The house was under democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Now its about to flip for the 4th time since. But gerrymandering is eliminating swing districts?

The Republican majority in the house is in part a product of a wildly successful campaign by the GOP to capture state legislatures and governors’ seats. It was very effective.

It’s been a problem with both parties but the GOP made a national strategy in 2010. Southern states like North Carolina and Georgia and Texas are notoriously bad. If the democrats had played hardball in CA and few other states where similar practices have been instituted they could have gerrymandered some GOP learning districts out of existence.

There are more democrats than republicans

[frank ryan]

What Prop 1 envisions is a district for Salt Lake County. That would remove blue votes from the other three districts, turning them darker red. The Salt Lake County district, presumably district 4, would go from a lean red, to a solid blue. I doubt any of the 4 districts would be competitive.

In a state that regularly votes 70%+ for the republican presidential candidate, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the democrats deserve one of our house seats.

Because they had to make the district look like a star fish so they barely won and election.

[BlueK]

What Prop 1 envisions is a district for Salt Lake County. That would remove blue votes from the other three districts, turning them darker red. The Salt Lake County district, presumably district 4, would go from a lean red, to a solid blue. I doubt any of the 4 districts would be competitive.

In a state that regularly votes 70%+ for the republican presidential candidate, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the democrats deserve one of our house seats.

So then why districts at all? It's in the Constitution, so someone thought there was a reason. They were wise enough to realize different interests exist within the same state. If the people on the coast have different interests than the farmers in the rural areas or the people in the cities, then they get represented. It was set up that way because it's fair. It most definitely was not their intent that the largest group would be able to keep the others completely out of the picture. By the way, 3/4=75%, which is a lot closer to 70% than 100% is.

[BlueK]

Interesting. The house was under democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Now its about to flip for the 4th time since. But gerrymandering is eliminating swing districts?

I don't know how your point has anything to do with that. You know what gerrymandering is for or you wouldn't be arguing for it.

[Copelius]

So then why districts at all? It's in the Constitution, so someone thought there was a reason.

There are no districts required in the Constitution. They are mandated by 2 USC 2c, which Congress is authorized to do in in Article I section 4.

I personally think it would be fascinating to see a state with many seats become multi-member and make all seats at large, and I think Congress should amend 2 USC 2c to allow it.

[BlueK]

There are no districts required in the Constitution. They are mandated by 2 USC 2c, which Congress is authorized to do in in Article I section 4.

I personally think it would be fascinating to see a state with many seats become multi-member and make all seats at large, and I think Congress should amend 2 USC 2c to allow it.

sorry, thanks for the correction. The net result of having all reps be at large within each state would actually hurt the GOP right now. I like the idea of districts, but this would at least eliminate the ability to gerrymander.

[All-American]

By the way, 3/4=75%, which is a lot closer to 70% than 100% is.

But one of them would be wrong.