I love Utah politics

[Eddie]

I don't live in Utah, but I hope prop 4 passes. it's the anti-gerrymandering proposal. Gerrymandering and out of control idiotic tribalism go hand in hand.

Me too.

[BlueK]

The idea that there are 15 cities in utah that are covered by more than one Congressional district is absolutely absurd. Extreme tribalism is supported when a representative to Congress is such a shoo-in for reelection because their district is so skewed toward a single type of constituent that they have zero incentive to ever even listen to or give an audience to a differing point of view. That's really bad for representative government.

https://betterboundaries.org/faq/

"What are some of the negative effects of gerrymandering in Utah?
Slicing and dicing of communities: A common gerrymandering tactic is unnecessarily breaking apart cities and towns. Fifteen Utah cities are split into two or more Congressional districts -- diminishing the collective voting power of those communities. Many other cities and towns are broken into multiple House and Senate districts.

A particularly egregious example of this can be found with the city of Holladay, a city of approximately 30,000 people. Holladay is split between four State House districts, two State Senate districts and two Congressional districts. A typical State House district has roughly 30,000 people. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the voters. “Accountability is lost when a city like Holladay is broken apart into so many districts. “ - Rob Dahle, Mayor of Holliday* (Independent) *Formal title only used for identification purposes."

[wapiti]

I don't live in Utah, but I hope prop 4 passes. it's the anti-gerrymandering proposal. Gerrymandering and out of control idiotic tribalism go hand in hand.

I don't understand why a republican would think an independent commission's boundaries would be better than a republican legislature's boundaries. Prop 4 is a proposal to help democrats get a house seat from Utah. Why would I support that?

[wapiti]

The idea that there are 15 cities in utah that are covered by more than one Congressional district is absolutely absurd. Extreme tribalism is supported when a representative to Congress is such a shoo-in for reelection because their district is so skewed toward a single type of constituent that they have zero incentive to ever even listen to or give an audience to a differing point of view. That's really bad for representative government.

https://betterboundaries.org/faq/

"What are some of the negative effects of gerrymandering in Utah?
Slicing and dicing of communities: A common gerrymandering tactic is unnecessarily breaking apart cities and towns. Fifteen Utah cities are split into two or more Congressional districts -- diminishing the collective voting power of those communities. Many other cities and towns are broken into multiple House and Senate districts.

A particularly egregious example of this can be found with the city of Holladay, a city of approximately 30,000 people. Holladay is split between four State House districts, two State Senate districts and two Congressional districts. A typical State House district has roughly 30,000 people. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the voters. “Accountability is lost when a city like Holladay is broken apart into so many districts. “ - Rob Dahle, Mayor of Holliday* (Independent) *Formal title only used for identification purposes."

Do cities have the right to vote?

[frank ryan]

I don't understand why a republican would think an independent commission's boundaries would be better than a republican legislature's boundaries. Prop 4 is a proposal to help democrats get a house seat from Utah. Why would I support that?

Because it’s ethical. California did that and I think every state should. Gerrymandering is certainly not something the founding fathers would’ve been all about and it’s unhealthy for our Republic.

[BlueK]

I don't understand why a republican would think an independent commission's boundaries would be better than a republican legislature's boundaries. Prop 4 is a proposal to help democrats get a house seat from Utah. Why would I support that?

Because runaway tribalism is bad for democracy. It's not a proposal for getting a democrat elected. You already have one of those in Utah anyway (district 2). That wouldn't even necessarily change. It's ABSURD that a basic entity like a city with all of it's diverse people and neighborhoods shouldn't be represented by someone who would have a reason to listen to everyone. We are losing our freedom in this country because of this Gerrymandering garbage. You actually like representatives who don't give a shit what the people think because their reelection is a foregone conclusion every two years? That's what we're talking about.

It doesn't even have to be about a partisan issue. The fact that your rep for all intents and purposes has a lifetime appointment after winning election one time means he/she has little reason to care what you think even if you're of the same party.

[BlueK]

Because it’s ethical. California did that and I think every state should. Gerrymandering is certainly not something the founding fathers would’ve been all about and it’s unhealthy for our Republic.

why would I care about the health of our Republic as long as my tribe is in charge?

Seriously, it is unethical and un-American. George Washington was right to be worried about the rise of political parties.

[BlueK]

Do cities have the right to vote?

LOL. People from every neighborhood within a city should have representation. What has evolved flies in the face of what the Founding Fathers wanted. But you're ok with that. This is why almost a majority of Americans have left the two major parties.

[BigPiney]

Because it’s ethical. California did that and I think every state should. Gerrymandering is certainly not something the founding fathers would’ve been all about and it’s unhealthy for our Republic.

totally agree. I was able to vote for that here.

It resulted in a major redrawing of my congressional district.

The weird thing California also does is the top two vote getters in the primary, no matter the party, run off in the general election. So this fall I have two democrats to choose from for senate and for congress two republicans.

[smokymountainrain]

does wapiti, who had posted 4 times since february of 2017 prior to these recent posts, come back to defend his positions?

[wapiti]

People from every neighborhood within a city should have representation.

I've seen nothing in the constitution about neighborhoods or cities having the right to vote. Voting is an individual right.

[BlueK]

I've seen nothing in the constitution about neighborhoods or cities having the right to vote. Voting is an individual right.

Come on. That's not what I was arguing. I said PEOPLE. If you think it's all about partisanship, and it's ok for your rep to never have to worry about his reelection because of the way the lines are drawn, then make that argument rather than being a butthead. Don't pretend gerrymandering has nothing to do with manipulating elections.

[Eddie]

I've seen nothing in the constitution about neighborhoods or cities having the right to vote. Voting is an individual right.

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.

[wapiti]

Because runaway tribalism is bad for democracy. It's not a proposal for getting a democrat elected. You already have one of those in Utah anyway (district 2). That wouldn't even necessarily change. It's ABSURD that a basic entity like a city with all of it's diverse people and neighborhoods shouldn't be represented by someone who would have a reason to listen to everyone. We are losing our freedom in this country because of this Gerrymandering garbage. You actually like representatives who don't give a shit what the people think because their reelection is a foregone conclusion every two years? That's what we're talking about.

It doesn't even have to be about a partisan issue. The fact that your rep for all intents and purposes has a lifetime appointment after winning election one time means he/she has little reason to care what you think even if you're of the same party.

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.

[BlueK]

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.

I would argue it harms everyone, even those who belong to the same party, by training our reps to feel entitled, lazy and not having any reason to care what anyone they represent thinks because their election is assured every two years because most people are just going to vote for their party no matter what the rep does. Oh sure, they could be "primaried" if a certain interest group within the party gets upset, but even that isn't much of a threat.