Why Sanford Won: Our Elections Really Are Rigged

[BainsBane]

"Mark Sanford’s comeback bid was never so audacious as America’s political gossip columnists would have us believe. . . .

But Sanford still enjoyed the advantage that most winners of congressional races in the United States have. He was nominee of the party that the district was drawn, with painstaking attention to collecting all the Republican and Republican leaning support that could be found on the South Carolina coast, to support.

Partisan redistricting—not just classic gerrymandering but a variety of structural factors—assures that the vast majority of congressional districts in the vast majority of states produce predictable results. Even if the candidate of the dominant party is flawed, even if a challenger has financial advantages, FairVote executive director Rob Richie reminds us that “partisanship is the dominant factor in determining election outcomes.”

Another reform group, Common Cause explains, “For decades partisan wrangling has led to gerrymandered redistricting maps, collusion among the major political parties to create safe Congressional and state legislative districts, and the packing and splitting of concentrations of voters to weaken or strengthen their influence to gain partisan advantage.”

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174235/our-elections-really-are-rigged-gerrymandering-and-districting-abuses

[djean111]

1. All over the country.

And, as far as I know, disenchanted progressives and liberals did not have a hand in the gerrymandering.
Maybe we are supposed to pick some gerrymandered districts and actually move to them?

[BainsBane]

2. No, we need to gain control of state legislatures

in order to control redistricting and/ or support some of the reforms specified in the article.

[djean111]

3. Yes, I know - but gaining control in gerrymandered districts is sorta tricksy.

I wish the whole country could be properly redistricted. I am more likely to find that unicorn that I supposedly want to pet.

[daybranch]

4. no, no

Gerrymandering whether by republicans, democrats or whatever party is just plain wrong. The answer is to set up an independent commission composed of citizens not politicians who make each district competitive. Competition in the district is the onlky way to assure the citizens are actually represented and not just taken for granted due to party affiliation. There are many factors to be considered but the only one that really matters is getting the competition into the district.
These other factors include representation of minorities but if the district is a city with majority minority representation, the sure thing of electing only a democrat of the minority then that it selof leads to corruption or at least indifference by the leghislator towards his or hger constituents. Being repectful of municipal boundaries leads to a lack of competitiveness also. The concept of fairness often interpreted as making safe districts for each party in equal number is an abomination as the process is used to support gerrymandering as if it is a virtue. Competition is necessary to get the people represented and has to be the overriding criteria in all cases as long as other laws are met.

[BainsBane]

6. the article does lay out non-partisan solutions

advanced by citizen groups.

[bemildred]

5. Yep, this is what people mean when they complain of complicity between the parties. nt

[Blue Owl]

7. A 9-pt. lead turns into a 9-pt. loss

That wouldn't be a red flag for vote flipping or anything.