Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why isn't gerrymandering illegal [View all]TheBlackAdder
(28,515 posts)4. Link here. It walk talked on the TV and Radio for a couple of years, esp. NJ1015.com
.
Here's one link. It was actually 10 years ago.
https://www.nj.com/times-opinion/2012/01/opinion_nj_congressional_redis.html
Just a snippet of the article
First, the commission selected the best way to pare 13 districts down to 12 by putting a Republican and a Democratic incumbent in the same district, rather than two incumbents of the same party, thereby letting voters in the general election decide which incumbent returns to Congress. Putting two incumbents from the same party in one district would force a primary contest, typically a low-turnout election involving only voters from one party, which certainly is not as fair.
.
.
.
With those sensible changes in district lines, most observers agree that the districts are even less competitive than those of 10 years ago. One party now dominates, so incumbents appear to be assured of little competition from a challenger. Therefore, there will be a limited amount of campaigning to connect with voters but still lots of money being raised to fend off primary challengers. The bright side is that seniority in Congress rewards long-term incumbency with a leadership role.
This incumbent-safe arrangement means there is little potential for new people specifically women to run and be successful. Note that New Jersey has not had a woman in its congressional delegation since Marge Roukema, from Bergen County, retired in 2002.
.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
About 10 years ago, Dems & Reps in NJ got together and set up each district as safe zones.
TheBlackAdder
Dec 2021
#1
Link here. It walk talked on the TV and Radio for a couple of years, esp. NJ1015.com
TheBlackAdder
Dec 2021
#4
American supreme Court seems to error on the side of less democracy when it comes to voting
uponit7771
Dec 2021
#7
Yes, but what about explicitly anti-democratic and explicitly intended to favour one party?
Alexander Of Assyria
Dec 2021
#10
Thank you. Well, that's just wrong thinking by the majority. Political thinking. Not their job.
Alexander Of Assyria
Dec 2021
#18
One person one vote, equal representation in legislative body based on population
Alexander Of Assyria
Dec 2021
#11
No, but nothing bans it either. So legislatures can do, no problem, including the federal level.
Alexander Of Assyria
Dec 2021
#19
They also bought and sold humans. They also settled arguments by duel.
Progressive Jones
Dec 2021
#27
Elections and election laws are decided state by state. That is in the constitution.
AJT
Dec 2021
#22
It shouldn't favor one party or another every voter vote must be equally represented
Tribetime
Dec 2021
#29