The Circle/A Ted Dekker Community
The official online community of New York Times best-selling author Ted Dekker.
Redistricting and the 2010 census: a new way to lose that nasty incumbant representative
Okay, so I wrote out this nice long post for a thread which closed down, and, frankly, didn't feel like losing it. So, here goes, because it's relevant and interesting and worth paying attention to. (Don't I sound cocky? I didn't mean my post, but the subject.) RETS, my pardon for using you to kick things off. Questions to consider at the bottom.
RETS said:
Here's the deal on that, and please forgive me if I sound overly basic here. Please don't hear me saying redistricting is inconsequential. It will impact state legislatures tremendously and also federal congressional districts. But the electoral college is based not on who is elected to each state's delegation, but how many delegates there are. The number of electoral votes a state has is equivalent to the number of its representatives plus the number of its senators. So to change that number (and therefore impact the basic dynamics of our state-centered electoral college), there would have to be a massive population shift in terms of how the American people are distributed amongst the states.
We can't increase the overall number of Congressman, so that sort of shift would require taking an electoral vote away from one state and giving it to another. Now, that will happen. I was wrong when I said the only change likely was Utah; that one is just in my head because of DC voting rights, and that's an aside. But the changes are unlikely to be terribly numerically significant and, frankly, it's unclear as to which party that would favor. Regardless, that is called reapportioning, not redistricting. After the 2000 census, it favored the Republicans. (For example, according to some speculation it could go in the Republicans' favor this time as well, with Texas, Georgia, and Utah likely to see gains and New York and Massachusetts to see losses.)
Redistricting is deeply relevant on the state level. All of you should take that into consideration regarding your state legislatures, which are often overlooked in elections. Redistricting takes place on a state level, and various states handle it differently, but many states put it through their legislatures. The result is that whichever party is in power can curlicue districts to their heart's content, to split districts of the opposing party and bury them in their own power centers. That's relevant to who controls the state, and it's also relevant because they handle Congressional districts.
For example, if my home state of Missouri were to lose out on the census math (a possibility), then while we would obviously keep our two Senators, we would go from nine representatives to eight. That requires that the entire map be redrawn as to where the borders are for our Congressional districts. So when the next election comes around, some people are majorly going to lose out, incumbents will be fuzzier, and candidates will find they need to appeal to a slightly different constituency. So the impact on the distribution of seats in the House could also be considerable.
Here's one other thing to consider. This won't impact the general election or Barack Obama, but in the presidential primaries, some states allocate their delegates proportionally by congressional district. Now, as those are partisan elections to begin with, I'm not really sure how the differences would shake out, but in a state with a Democratic majority, it would likely blue-out the districts a bit and favor more moderate Republicans. (All hail Mitt Romney.)
There are a few predictions out there for possible changes to the electoral map. I have no idea which is most accurate. But for historical purposes, here is the electoral college from the 1990 census and from the 2000 census.
Thus concludes my friendly lesson; my apologies if I ran on, and do feel free to question or correct me if needed.
---
End of old post, beginning of questions for this thread:
Particularly to people who have voted in more elections than I have, have you seen redistricting/reapportioning impact you? How?
What do you think of how redistricting/reapportioning is handled? What could be some alternatives? (Clearly I'm not a huge fan, but you might be. Explain.)
How could this be handled so that the general public is made more aware the process, particularly regarding how it is affected by down-ticket elections?
And, yes, who gets counted (which is currently everyone living in this country) impacts the numbers and distribution as well. As does how you count people. Which, obviously, impacts who gets elected next. Clearly a related conversation, but probably requires an explanation of its own. Let me know if you want to go there, too.
And any other thoughts, comments, or resources you might have to offer. Have at.
RETS said:
Perhaps, then, I should go back and read up on how the electoral colleges work then. Not to sound like a jerk, but redistricting would cause a much larger ripple than you are allowing for.
Here's the deal on that, and please forgive me if I sound overly basic here. Please don't hear me saying redistricting is inconsequential. It will impact state legislatures tremendously and also federal congressional districts. But the electoral college is based not on who is elected to each state's delegation, but how many delegates there are. The number of electoral votes a state has is equivalent to the number of its representatives plus the number of its senators. So to change that number (and therefore impact the basic dynamics of our state-centered electoral college), there would have to be a massive population shift in terms of how the American people are distributed amongst the states.
We can't increase the overall number of Congressman, so that sort of shift would require taking an electoral vote away from one state and giving it to another. Now, that will happen. I was wrong when I said the only change likely was Utah; that one is just in my head because of DC voting rights, and that's an aside. But the changes are unlikely to be terribly numerically significant and, frankly, it's unclear as to which party that would favor. Regardless, that is called reapportioning, not redistricting. After the 2000 census, it favored the Republicans. (For example, according to some speculation it could go in the Republicans' favor this time as well, with Texas, Georgia, and Utah likely to see gains and New York and Massachusetts to see losses.)
Redistricting is deeply relevant on the state level. All of you should take that into consideration regarding your state legislatures, which are often overlooked in elections. Redistricting takes place on a state level, and various states handle it differently, but many states put it through their legislatures. The result is that whichever party is in power can curlicue districts to their heart's content, to split districts of the opposing party and bury them in their own power centers. That's relevant to who controls the state, and it's also relevant because they handle Congressional districts.
For example, if my home state of Missouri were to lose out on the census math (a possibility), then while we would obviously keep our two Senators, we would go from nine representatives to eight. That requires that the entire map be redrawn as to where the borders are for our Congressional districts. So when the next election comes around, some people are majorly going to lose out, incumbents will be fuzzier, and candidates will find they need to appeal to a slightly different constituency. So the impact on the distribution of seats in the House could also be considerable.
Here's one other thing to consider. This won't impact the general election or Barack Obama, but in the presidential primaries, some states allocate their delegates proportionally by congressional district. Now, as those are partisan elections to begin with, I'm not really sure how the differences would shake out, but in a state with a Democratic majority, it would likely blue-out the districts a bit and favor more moderate Republicans. (All hail Mitt Romney.)
There are a few predictions out there for possible changes to the electoral map. I have no idea which is most accurate. But for historical purposes, here is the electoral college from the 1990 census and from the 2000 census.
Thus concludes my friendly lesson; my apologies if I ran on, and do feel free to question or correct me if needed.
---
End of old post, beginning of questions for this thread:
Particularly to people who have voted in more elections than I have, have you seen redistricting/reapportioning impact you? How?
What do you think of how redistricting/reapportioning is handled? What could be some alternatives? (Clearly I'm not a huge fan, but you might be. Explain.)
How could this be handled so that the general public is made more aware the process, particularly regarding how it is affected by down-ticket elections?
And, yes, who gets counted (which is currently everyone living in this country) impacts the numbers and distribution as well. As does how you count people. Which, obviously, impacts who gets elected next. Clearly a related conversation, but probably requires an explanation of its own. Let me know if you want to go there, too.
And any other thoughts, comments, or resources you might have to offer. Have at.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by TC_2 on -
Oooo California is an absolute MESS!!
It's absolutely one of my pet peeves to see the politicians so carve up areas just to insure one side stays in power -- it just makes my blood boil. It should go by county lines only -- well established undeniable boundries and NOT move. This may be my last post on this subject -- because it makes me SO mad! I think I may not be able to converse without major emotion. I have voted in EVERY single election since I was 18 -- 32 years ago, and that means all the little local ones too.
-
Permalink Reply by KC on -
I'm assuming it's necessary to have a census to figure out how much our population has changed and where people have relocated. In itself it's not a bad thing. But using as a political tool--not good.
I've voted for years in several states and I don't know a thing about re-districting. I've never heard of re-districting affecting me. I would love to know more about it.
What I'm wondering is:
1. Do illegal immigrants count in the census? If so, how does this affect the political process? Are they allowed to vote even if they're not citizens, just because they live here?
2. What do you mean by who gets counted? Or how you count people? How many ways can there be to count people, and how could they count anyone but who really lives and breathes?
More later after I've slept.
-
Permalink Reply by RETS on -
No problem with using me, Skip. lol
All right, I see how you're seeing it. I'm glad I misunderstood what you were saying earlier in regards to the census/redistricting affecting outcomes.
I'll come and join the actual discussion you've laid out in a moment, but first, I am a bit curious as to why you gave the very reason the census could cause an issue without actually seeing or acknowledging it.
"So to change that number (and therefore impact the basic dynamics of our state-centered electoral college), there would have to be a massive population shift in terms of how the American people are distributed amongst the states."
Prior census counts have specifically targeted citizens. This coming Census is not. Ergo, the population of the US will "shift" massively-- At least on paper.
-
Permalink Reply by Zoe on -
I think redistricting could possibly be good for Washington State. In the last several years, many people have moved over the hills, as it were, to the Eastern side of the state. We're still vastly outnumbered, but . . . it's something, I guess.
That's about all I have to add . . . I'm afraid I'm not terribly informed on this subject.
-
Permalink Reply by Blaze19D on -
ah yes, Gerrymandering, a sure fire way to gain unconstitutional power.
-
Permalink Reply by Saxsoon on -
It obviously was started to track population shifts. During the Reconstruction era it was used to help minority politicians have a shot in the south.
And of course the famous one.
http://www.scs.fsu.edu/~burkardt/data/jpg/gerrymander.jpg
-
Permalink Reply by Paradox on -
TC_2 said:It's absolutely one of my pet peeves to see the politicians so carve up areas just to insure one side stays in power -- it just makes my blood boil. It should go by county lines only -- well established undeniable boundries and NOT move.
You can't do that. Part of what goes into the redistricting process is trying to make sure that each and every district represents approximately the same number of people. Skip, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the number that comes to mind from my American Government classes years ago is 600,000 people. Some counties will be more populous than others so you can't just say that the county is the smallest indivisible portion of area that could be made into a district because some counties will contain millions of people. And people don't stay in one place forever so over time the population in those counties change. This is why we have the census.
As far as my personal experience with redistricting goes, I would have to say that it has effected my area negatively. My county is one of the more democratic ones in the state of Texas outside of the large metropolitan areas due to a very high union presence from the local refineries and petrochem plants. The 2004 elections were the first elections following some redistricting in Texas and my county, which had previously comprised the majority of its own district, was then lumped in with parts of east and north Houston. Thus in the '04 elections our Democratic incumbent lost to a Republican from Houston. Being a conservative area one would think we'd be thrilled, but most people aren't. Our Democratic Representative cared about the issues of our area. Our new Republican Representative rarely leaves Houston. And while there are a lot of similarities between us and Houston, we've lost the representation of the nuances that separate us from the Houston metroplex area.
-
Permalink Reply by Paradox on
-
An interesting article from 538 discussing a theory that compact districts in the current party alignment in America are inherently biased against the Democrats.
About
Latest Activity
Paradox: Are you my brother in law? Cause I swear you sound just like him...(not a bad thing)
© 2010 Created by Admin (KSK)
