Here's one thing we could do about redistricting

[Ken Burch]

We could start initiative campaigns to take redistricting away from the legislature and set up elected redistrictring boards instead.

This would make it much more difficult for the state 'pugs, if those initiatives were passed, to gerrymander us into oblivion in Congress and the state legislative seats.

Worth a try, isn't it?

It would give people something to work for and a reason to feel politics still mattered, both of which could only boost turnout in 2012.

[liberal N proud]

1. Something needs to be done for sure

It is criminal the way they are currently drawn and the upcoming redistricting will be just as ugly with the republicans in control of most of the state house.

[Ken Burch]

4. The arbitrary 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House is also criminal

That limit was set in 1913, when our population was a third of what it is now.

The size limit hurts workers, the poor, and the powerless.

Democrats have a moral duty to overturn it and to make the House, once again, a chamber that gives us representation based on population.

No state whose population grows should ever LOSE Congressional seats.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. The last thing we need in Washington is more yahoos making mroe white noise and eating more public $

As far as I'm concerned... 90%+ of politicians are crooks and scam artists regardless of the letter after their name.

[Ken Burch]

13. Congress is doomed to stay right-of-center if the size limit stays in place.

A 435 seat Congress cannot truly represent a nation of 300 million, especially when it has caused states whose population has increased since the size limit was imposed to LOSE congressional representation. And, other than California, the only states that have gained are states that are permanently right-wing, like the South and Texas.

[Yupster]

14. I don't see what advantage more congressmen would bring

What are you thinking the advantage would be?

I see more congressmen assigning more pork projects to their districts and wasting more money on staff, travel, advertising, etc.

Since they pretty much all vote with their parties anyway, I don't see the advantage of a bigger congress.

[Ken Burch]

15. It would mean more representation for the states where we can actually elect people.

It would mean more seats in New York, Illinois, Ohio...the places where Democrats AREN'T eternally doomed(as we are in Texas, Florida and the rest of that region).

We should want there to be as much representation in Congress for the states that Bruce Springsteen sings about rather than more in the states where Toby Keith tops the charts.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Really easy to set up a double blind method of redistricting.

Where choices of districts have nothing to do with economics or politics.

[demodonkey]

3. Was tried in PA... will take an Amendment to the State Constitution...

...the Dem who was then Chair of the State Government Committee didn't like the proposal, so the next possible chance we will have to do this Amendment (or rewrite the whole Constitution) will be in time for the 2020 Census-2021 Redistricting.

Since the GOPs took over, this Dem's committee chairmanship is going to one of the most ultraconservative Teabagger types in the Legislature.

:-(

[BzaDem]

5. That would cause an imbalance though if it's just done in the blue or purple states.

That means the only gerrymandering going on will be done by Republicans, permanently and unfairly skewing the House to the right.

For example, California now has an unelected board doing redistricting (which will result in more Republicans getting elected in California than before, since California was very gerrymandered in 2000). In principle, less gerrymandering is good, but in Ohio/Pennsylvania/Texas/etc, Republican state legislatures will now be able to gerrymander without limit (while California, controlled entirely by Democrats, will be prohibited from doing so).

Perhaps your idea would make sense in purple states only, where state legislative/gubernatorial control usually switches back and forth. That would be a good start, without an unconditional surrender.

[Ken Burch]

6. Try it in the Red States, too, of course.

We need to break the control of legislatures over redistricting, since state legislatures are likely to be reactionary for years to come.

If the seats are drawn against us, we have no hope of regaining Congress. And if we can't do that, we have no reason to exist as a party. It can't be worth carrying on in permanent minority status.

[BzaDem]

7. Oh I agree with you that we need to regain Congress.

I'm just saying that if Republican controlled Texas is going to gerrymander its seats, we should let Democratic controlled California do the same to balance out the effects. That way, instead of having a +5 R advantage in Texas and a +0 D advantage in CA, we can have a +5 R advantage in Texas and a +5 D advantage in CA. Obviously some sort of pact between both states (or preferably all states) ending gerrymandering would be better though.

Having all the Democratic-controlled states stop gerrymandering, while allowing Republican controlled states to still gerrymander, produces an even worse outcome. One of the reasons redistricting might go badly for us in 2011 is because California did prevent Jerry Brown and the Democratic legislature from drawing districts.

The real focus needs to be on the swing states (Ohio/PA/etc), where control switches back and forth frequently.

[Ken Burch]

8. I've corrected the OP to say it needs to happen in ALL states.

It's too late to restore legislative control of redistricting in California, though.

[onenote]

9. slight problem: around half of the states don't have an initiative process

[onenote]

10. if they are elected redistricting boards why would the results be that

different in the states that have elected repub majorities to their legislatures?

[Ken Burch]

11. You word the iniatiatives so that the boards are nonpartisan

And make the campaign an appeal to the electorate's sense of fair play.

Also, you can phrase it as an attack on politicians in general, which can gain support from various quarters.