Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 3 years ago

Why would anyone ever in good faith ever oppose gerrymandering reform?

I mean I understand why they'd do it in *bad faith*, but what above-board argument could anyone offer to the public without simply admitting they want to subvert democracy?

Update:

JoJo you just explained why people do it in *bad faith*, meaning you did not read the question.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Because there are less of us Republicans, and if the districts were not gerrymandered, we would be outnumbered by Democrats and thus not represented.

    If you are the minority party such as we are, its the only way you can win. We have only 45% of the votes cast for House representatives, for instance, but ended up with 65% of the seats in the House. Now, how else could we pull that off?

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    How does democracy end? Classically, with a military coup. But in a disturbing number of cases, it commits suicide, as a democratically-elected group, once in power, changes the rules to entrench itself in power.

    Left unchecked, partisan gerrymandering fundamentally undermines our democracy. It is a basic tenet of fair elections that the parties must play by the same rules. But a partisan gerrymander violates that core principle: Under a successful partisan gerrymander, one party needs fewer votes to win representation than the other party. A partisan gerrymander places unequal burdens on voters’ opportunity to elect their representatives, based on the party with which they associate. And where the partisan gerrymander is unresponsive to electoral shifts, only the courts can provide a remedy.

    Despite this threat to democracy, groups that support partisan gerrymandering–at least when done for the benefit of the party they support—are easy to spot. Below is a list of the groups that submitted “friend of the court” briefs in support of the Wisconsin gerrymander, Act 43. These were sent to the US Supreme Court in anticipation of its October 3 argument.

    Groups Who Support the Wisconsin Gerrymander

    American Civil Rights Union

    Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation

    Majority Leader and Temporary President of the New York State Senate and members of the Majority Coalition

    ***

    National Republican Congressional Committee

    Republican National Committee

    Republican State Leadership Committee

    ***

    Southeastern Legal Foundation

    States of Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah

    Tennessee State Senators

    ***

    Legacy Foundation

    Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

    Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce

    Wisconsin State Senate and Wisconsin State Assembly

    That the two dozen states and other organizations represented were willing to stand up for gerrymandering represents the triumph of partisanship over devotion to democracy. While several of the organizations represented describe themselves as “non-partisan,” it is doubtful they would have endorsed a Democratic-favoring gerrymander.

    I find this a very depressing collection. Much of the right-wing seems to have adopted the attitude that gaining and holding power is more important than respect for democracy.

    https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/08/23/data-wonk-ri...

  • 3 years ago

    do you know what gerrymandering is? It means re-drawing political boundaries to affect the result of elections / propositions.

    For example, let's just say the Republican party knew it couldn't win the popular vote for president, so they divided the country into 50 regions and made each region worth a certain number of representative (or "electoral") votes. They could then draw the lines so that areas with high concentrations of democrats would represent only a few of these regions (but a lot of people) while areas with high concentrations of republicans would represent a large number of regions (but relatively few people). In this way, theoretically, the Republican party might with a majority of 'electoral' votes even though more people actually voted for the Democratic candidate.

    Only theoretically, of course. Such a scenario would be incredibly unlikely in real life.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.