No voter probably wants to hear that the state legislature is simply playing game when drawing the lines for the voting districts in their state. They might be horrified and disgusted to know that their ability to vote for who they want to represent relies on the childish way of making candidates of happy with perfectly drawn districts to give them the advantage at the polls. That how I felt when I first learned about gerrymandering. I couldn’t feel it was wrong in some way. It seemed unfair and the voting of was going to be rigged for the candidate who chooses to runs that district. It was like if you could make a game about drawing district it be easy, and maybe I thought a computer could do it. But, as I began to play the redistricting game I saw it wasn’t child’s play with came to drawing districts, and I also saw towards the end of mission that creating districts in this way had benefits for the voters. When I first started to play the redistricting game I thought it was going to simple. As an avid video gamer, I was kind of familiar with puzzles like this and but I’ve never had to meet more than on condition before. I first focused on getting the population equal for each candidate. At first, I thought that just splitting up the population into districts with relativity square shaped would be the correct way to make the candidates happy. I attempted to make their houses the center of the district and expanded from there until I got
Voters in states like Idaho wouldn’t benefit from this. There are once other problems when comes to gerrymandering. While candidate of the majority party has the advantage, it doesn’t allow for a third party candidate to have as much as a chance. Voters of smaller party will be spilt up between the districts and it becomes difficult for a candidate to elected they favor thus making it hard to a third party to become represented in
To begin with the unequal representation of the states in the Virginia Plan was of great concern and controversy while the New Jersey Plan retained equal representation of the states. Virginia proposed a bicameral legislature that included elections by the people and appointments by those elected. This system used both wealth and population as a determining factor in regards to the number of seats in both houses. New Jersey on the other hand proposed single house legislature that allow each state a single vote. Votes based on population would put small states at a disadvantage. The states that were more populated would be in control of the legislative branches, leaving small states without a voice. Concerns about who was to be counted in the population also ...
Should British General Elections be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation? As the results came in for the 2010 election, it became pretty clear that the First Past The Post system had failed to give us a conclusive answer as to which party should be the next to form government and, as a result, we ended up with the first coalition government since the Second World War. The circumstances that lead to the formation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition made people question whether it was time for Britain to reform its electoral system in time for the next election, and the term “proportional representation” became printed across the media as a way for Britain to gain a fairer voting system with fairer results. As events unfolded The Telegraph reported, just two days after the ballots had closed, that 48% of voters supported the implementation of a Proportional Representation system , which may not seem a great amount but is still a higher percentage than a first party has gained since Labour in 1966. It is also worth noting that even though the First Past the Post system allowed the Liberal Democrats to be part of government for the first time, the party remains a strong supporter of electoral reform to a system of Proportional Representation , as the Liberal Democrats have more to gain from the implementation of this system than any of the other other parties.
Voters should care about redistricting because it cherry-picks voters, can be used to eliminate an incumbent, eliminate an opponent, skews state-wide representation, dilutes minority voting, and splits up communities. The lines are tailored to fit the representatives and not the voters. The negative effect of political redistricting is there is no compromise left when one party draws the lines so that they will win and the other will lose. Competition is critical when voters want or need something passed, but when one group has more control, then there is no need for compromise. It dilutes minority voting because the maps can be redrawn for a certain incumbent if the incumbent is losing that minority vote.
The legislative branch of America helps create the laws or legislation. Ideally, it works to create a society that is safe for all members. The State of California like the federal government has a bicameral legislature, in other words, composed of two chambers. The upper chamber is called the senate, while the lower is called the assembly. A unique process for the state level is that it allows for the initiative. This process circumvents the state congress and can create laws without their aide. In the state of California, every ten years, following a US census, which collects demographic information, state legislators draw redistricting plans for itself, California seats in the US House of Representatives, and the State Board of Equalization. There have been attempts to create a “non-partisan” redistricting commission, but this has been turned down by voters numerous times. Proposition 14, 39, 118, and 119 were all turned down by voters to create a non-partisan districting commission. Every decade a large portion of the state congress’s energy is spent on redistricting. In fact, two of the last four censuses, Supreme Court has had to step in to break a deadlock. In 1970, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, vetoed all together the Democratic redistricting plan. The Supreme Court had to step in and created its own plans for California to follow. Then in 1981, Democrats proposed redistricting as well as congressional delegation redistricting. The Republicans stopped this by adding referendums to the state ballot. Because it was too close to elections though, Supreme Court overturned these referendums in 1982. In 1984, they officially passed the new redistricting plan which was very similar to the original plans.
The history of gerrymandering is one that has caused some major shakeups in how politics are done. A man named Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts back in 1812, started it all. The governor had the idea of redistricting his states lines in order to benefit his political party. One specific district was so badly morphed that it almost resembled a salamander, and thus you get the name, gerrymandering (Barasch). But it didn’t just stop in 1812 Massachusetts; it became one of the most common strategies in American politics. We even see it happening in modern day. For example, Texas in 2003 had realigned its districts in such a way that it put ten Democratic Congressman in heavy red, conservative districts (Barasch). This move was done to lessen their power within the house. As a result, half of them were not voted back in for the next election. The act of gerrymandering is not just as simple as redrawing districts, the un...
Today, the citizens of the United States must push Congress to formulate an oversight measure to fix voter disenfranchisement. By itself, Supreme Court Ruling Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder does minimal damage to the voting process of the United States. The court ruled discriminatory practices of district actions half a century old unconstitutional, but left a responsibility for Congress to modernize the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that no district nor individual is discriminated against. Given the history of the United States’s voter suppression and the original need for the Voting Rights Act, a new, modern voter equality policy is of dire importance.
...n over bipartisan commission or even worse, by the state legislature. I think bipartisan commission could ultimately result in bipartisan gerrymandering. On the other hand, the party in control of the state legislature often draws district lines in favor of its own political interest. Independent commission guarantees fair non-political congressional districts plans which cannot be vetoed by the governor who also acts in favor of his political party’s interest. I believe democracy in a state is attainable when the people legitimately vote for the representatives they want but not vice versa.
The candidates will have a better chance of getting elected.
Every ten years after a census, politicians redraw the district boundaries that determine the house and state legislature. The problem with this system is that the same politicians who redraw the district boundaries are the ones who are being elected by the
In American politics today, many practices exist that greatly harm the American public. One of these dangerous practices, known as gerrymandering, occurs in nearly every state. While some claim that the practice helps America, in reality gerrymandering harms American democracy and safety. Gerrymandering greatly affects society, and must become illegal to insure fair representation, the democratic processes in America continues, and America continues to thrive.
...e a lot of parties are going to be running for office. However, for the fringe parties this creates a major advantage for them. With the load of political parties in the House of Commons, there would be a wider range of interests for people but there would be a lot of indecision and coalitions.
This is unfair because this suggests that voting power changes with your geography. Election of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 reveals that sometimes a candidate with fewer popular votes can still win a majority of the electoral votes. This is a disadvantage because the state’s popular opinion is being neglected. Another thing to consider is the winner take all system, a system in which the “winner of their statewide popular vote gets all of their allotted votes in the Electoral College System which poses another disadvantage. The winner take all system is also known as the “Congressional District Method”; all states follow this except Maine and Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska tend to divide the votes proportionally. The winner take all system is however inequitable because in a state there is a vast amount of opinions, and this system prevents the minority from being discerned. This system “ does nothing to provide representation to any group making up less than half of the population in a given voting district.” Winner take all is a discriminatory rule as it tends to under represent minority. Winner take all is also a binary system, so if you are a Democrat living in Alabama (which is primarily a Republican state) your opinion is less likely to her
The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
...s vote for a party instead for an individual, and when the votes are tallied for the region the regional representative seats for that region are divided among the parties in proportion to the share of the vote that each party received.
...lity of the votes (Shugart 632). Each states would be important under such a system, as candidates would be forced to address as many voters as possible, not just "voting blocs" that could swing a plurality in the state and, therefore, the entire state. More people would participate in elections because they would know that every vote did indeed count.