Is the Senate Broken?

CBS 60 Minutes "Is the U.S. Senate Broken?"

John Oliver on Big Tobacco

Hey guys so i was on youtube and one of my subscribed channels John Oliver tonight just did an episode on Big Tobacco and I thought that it would be interesting to a handful of you so here you go, and with John Stewart leaving this guy might just step up

John Boehner and the Fiscal Cliff

As we have discussed in class, being the Speaker of the House can be a bit like "herding cats", and for John Boehner this has proven to be especially true. Boehner is dealing with an exceptionally fractured Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and his ability to persuade (or herd) the members of his party on important policy decisions is the best insight we can get into his leadership style and legislative acumen. 

Below is a link to a Frontline documentary titled Cliffhanger. You will use this documentary, as well as the provided readings, to write a 2-3 page analysis of John Boehner's speakership. Use the following questions as a guide while you read the documents and watch the Frontline documentary .

• Which previous Speaker, or Speakers, does Boehner most resemble?
• How does Boehner use the legislative powers of the Speaker of the House?
• What is Boehner’s relationship with the President?
• What is Boehner's relationship with his party?
• Is Boehner a powerful Speaker or an ineffective Speaker?
• What makes for a powerful Speaker? 
• Is it the man? 
• The powers of the position? 
• The political climate at the time?

PBS Frontline: Cliffhanger

Proportional Gerrymandering

After viewing the video by CPG Grey and seeing what my classmates had to say, I think that proportional gerrymandering is the best method to use in order to stop actual gerrymandering that is ruining elections in America.  Yes, some may say that this method is not right because you are essentially using the problem to fix itself but it works.  Proportional gerrymandering will allow for the closest and most accurate results by simply specifically drawing lines.  Gerrymandering in this case is okay to use because it is benefitting everyone and giving all representative a fair run for Congress.  Even though this method may not be totally perfect it is however a better idea to the problem than many of the other solutions.  A bi-partisan redistricting committee sounds good in reality but how can the voters be sure that these people are really going to draw the lines without any outside influence.  They obviously will have an opinion and after a while that power could lead them to start gerrymandering.  The method of the Shortest-Split Line however is another good idea because it takes away all of the personal aspects that cause gerrymandering and there is an exact science so nothing can be purposefully fixed.  However, with this method even though it is math, it can produce results that give unfair districts.  So, all in all the only way to produce fair districts and eliminate gerrymandering, is to use proportional gerrymandering. 

 

This image is the exact reason why gerrymandering cannot exist.  It creates unfair districts, but proportional gerrymandering can fix these problems. 

NNNNNOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Jon Stewart Is Leaving the Daily Show

Proportional Gerrymandering: A Definite Solution

After viewing CGP Grey's video in which he explained the three redistricting methods I can safely say that proportional gerrymandering is the most effective and satisfying method by far. Proportional gerrymandering is essentially the act of matching the voters in districts as a whole which results in a competitive and leaves these regions with the most proportionate results possible. As proportional gerrymandering may not seem like the most legitimate and "justified" way possible due to the fact that it is using gerrymandering to limit gerrymandering, it is the most superior method of redistricting. Many people may say that Independent commissions totally eliminate gerrymandering while creating proportional districts, but in the end they still end up creating disproportionate districts and unfair elections. Similar to these disadvantages, in independent commissions, it is still likely that gerrymandering would be the mastermind behind this method of redistricting. As I saw that many of my peers thought that the split line method might work the best, but I would have to disagree. The split line method only brings uncertainty to an election due to the fact that it basically draws a random line to separate districts. Now one may say that once the split line method is applied, mathematical algorithms can be checked to see how the districts were split up, but this is after the fact of the election and if the results do not satisfy the voters then the whole process must repeated until it creates the most desirable districts. Ultimately, proportionate gerrymandering is the most superior method of redistricting because it limits gerrymandering and it creates justifiable results.

Proportional Gerrymandering

Proportional Gerrymandering is a system in which district lines are redrawn with the voters interests in mind resulting in a much fairer way to . For example, if the majority party at this time in a district was the Democratic party and the minority party would be, by the same token, the Republican Party, the lines in this district would be redrawn to represent this disparity while still keeping fairness of elections in mind. AKA:

 This

 Instead Of This

By drawing the lines of each district with attention to what party affiliation people place themselves in and preventing self serving bias from entering this process the best result can be attained. On the blog some have argued that the fairest way to split up the districts is by using an algorithm however this could still result in districts that are unfairly split up, potentially giving a party a false majority. To fix this system we have to: First, remove bias and political interest when drawing these lines, and second, drawing these lines in a fair and meaningful way giving neither party a false or unfair majority as seen below:

This map shows that ohios voters are almost split down the middle, with democrats having a slight advantage of 1%, however because of how the lines are drawn, republicans, in this case, have a distinct advantage. Indeed Proportional gerrymandering could solve this problem and many such problems across the nation.

Shortest Split-Line Method

I agree with Joe, and several other that the best solution towards gerrymandering is the shortest split-line method. This method uses math to draw equal districts using math. Using math is the best solution because it is unbiased and is factual. An equation is the most reliable thing. People aren't reliable because no matter what they are biased. Bias is in human nature and it is impossible to have any type of committee or council that is unbiased. People will always side towards their party, therefore gerrymandering would not be solved. A mathematical equation has no bias and will be the best way to prevent gerrymandering.
 

Proportional Gerrymandering

After viewing CGP Grey's video, the articles read, and the Redistricting game, it is apparent that proportional gerrymandering is the ideal method. Proportional gerrymandering is the use of gerrymandering however instead of creating districts to give one party an advantage and a safely won election, it does the opposite where the districts are made in proportion to the voting base of the citizens. This brings competition into the elections and allows voters to be represented in the fairest, most democratic way possible. While it can be argued that the shortest split-line method is the most democratic method because of its sole reliance on algorithms, therefore entirely taking out bias from the creation of districts, it would more likely than not make districts that disproportionately represent the citizens, since it doesn't take into consideration what areas are more populated, ideological differences across the state, etc. If this unbiased method doesn't fix the problem, then it defeats the purpose of implementing a different system from the one we have. CGP Grey makes the point that disproportionate representation is by far the worst problem of gerrymandering. If this unbiased method doesn't fix the problem, then it defeats the purpose of implementing a different system from the one we have. Logically to end disproportionate gerrymandering would be to proportionately gerrymander. There is the possibility of bias coming into the system, but it shouldn't be difficult to find one forward thinking person with the influence of money to make proportional districts. As Alyse said, someone isn't going to toy with the process in the risk of losing their salary. To conclude, I agree with Alyse, Bailey, Susan and others in saying proportional gerrymandering would be the most effective method to reforming the redistricting process. 

Shortest Split-Line Redistricting

I agree with Kevin in saying that shortest split-line redistricting is the best possible way to make gerrymandering much much less of a problem. The simple fact is that a mathematical equation is far more reliable than a re-elected old white congressman. Even though some unfair districts may form randomly, the majority of the population would most likely be balanced. This is as simple as it gets. There's really no more to explain than all other solutions for gerrymandering involve people who have their own self interests in their minds at all times, while shortest split-line is just math.

Porportional Gerrymandering

I completely agree with Kayla and Julia that proportional gerrymandering is the best route to take. The House was made to be the piece of government closest to the people. In order for the House to represent people’s views, their views should be proportionally represented. The shortest split-line method can sometimes cause the representation to be off. If there is way to ensure that the proportional representation could be accurate every time then why wouldn’t we use it? If someone is being paid to purposely gerrymander then they wouldn’t risk their salary to toy with the process. They could always have more jobs in place after the person finishes looking over the job and making sure it fulfills

all the requirements it was asked to fill. This process can also make court cases regarding gerrymandering disappear because since it’s a purposeful act no one can argue with it. Even if there are weirdly shaped states, everyone would be informed of it in the first place and know the reason why, If someone is politically interested enough to look up the shape of their House district then by that time I’m sure they would be informed of the new system out in place. In the article it said that gerrymandering has grown to becoming easier with computer systems and such. Those systems could also potentially help this process too. Also, this solution should make people the most happy. People are now guaranteed that their state, and their wants and needs are accurately represented. Now if CT wants one republican district that encompasses all of the republicans in the state because their population is little then they would finally get a voice unlike now where if you are a republican living in CT you literally have no voice whatsoever because all of our House reps are democratic unlike with the split-line where they could still split up the districts equally and have republicans split up everywhere. This would give them no voice still. Proportional gerrymandering ensures representation no matter where you may reside in the state.

Shortest Split-Line Method

The shortest split-line method is the answer to political gerrymandering that reults in disproportianate election results and unfair winning of elections. The shortest split-line divides voting areas by math, so no bias is involved, unlike in the drawing of districts by politicians. Since no one group in control chooses where the lines are created, they cannot influence the keeping or losing of their seats within the government body. Also, the mathematical equation can be distributed to prove that the districts are created without bias. This method is as unpartisan as they get, while the others rely on people who may not be as unbiased as they claim to be. This method also eliminates a majority from completely taking control and ensures that the voting results in elections accurately represent the people within an area. On the top is the state of Alabama, which contains districts created by politicians that are very uneven. On the bottom however, is the same state but divided with the shortest split-line method. It is obvious that the districts are much more even in size and area which means they are more closely similar in population. Shortest split-line districting may not be the end all of solutions to fix gerrymandering, but it is the most unbiased and evenly created.

Proportional Gerrymandering

The solution to Gerrymandering in our system that I think would work the best is using the proportional Gerrymandering.  Like it said in the CGPGrey  video, he explained the to fix the problem, we need to embrace it.  Americans, as people, are only interested in benefiting themselves and their personal interests.  Using this to an advantage and paying the consultant used to outline the districts so that they use equal proportions to outline the districts, then there will be accurate, equal representation from the districts and the votes will be an accurate representation of the actual people in the district.

In the map shown above, you can clearly see Gerrymandering in effect in 2004 in Northern Florida.  District 3 is obviously an abnormal shape and that is because the representatives wanted the voters from in those areas North while still having the large chunk between 6 and 7.  With proportional Gerrymandering, there would be able to be equal sized districts so that all parts of the state have an equal chance of being represented.  Of course, by playing the Redistricting game, I learned that not everyone can be pleased with Gerrymandering so by trying to make the representation as equal as possible, they can try to make everyone as happy as they can.

shortest split line method

The method that makes the most sense is the shortest split line method. First reason why this method makes the most since is because it leaves out all bias. It is a mathematical way of figuring out how to divide the districts into an equal number. To stop the problem of gerrymandering you need to get all the "people" out of it and un-bias math choose the districts. This will force the representatives to draw fair equal lines and not configure the elections in their favor. A down fall of this method is that it ignores geographic features such as rivers and such. However with every district will be chosen at random with random representatives,it will make it a fair election and not so easy for people to get re-elected. Another question frequently asked is what if you have an odd number of districts? Well this way requires just a little more math than when you have an even number of districts. Say we have 40 representatives and 8 districts.  Normally you would have to keep splitting the number in half until you have you 8 equal districts. However when an odd number of districts comes up there are ways to get around that too.This Political Cartoon shows that the two major parties will try and draw districts that will help them win and stay in office. This proves why the shortest split line method is the best solution to eliminate gerrymandering. There is no bias.

Independent Redistricting Committee

Looking through many of the other blog posts most people seem to prefer the split-line method or the proportional gerrymandering method. I personally disagree with both of those methods and would prefer an independent redistricting committee. The shortest split line method doesn't take into account other demographic factors and could possibly leave a state with all representatives of one party or another. This would obviously be a problem. Proportional gerrymandering divides people into distinct voting patterns and discourages competition in elections. If an independent committee were to draw district lines to promote competition and make better politicians as a result. The other options can all result in several safe seats that guarantee Congressmen will basically have their seats for life which is what nobody wants. An independent committee wouldn't support on party or the other heavily and could be designed to create competition, which would in theory make better politicians and better policy.  

Proportional Gerrymandering

After reading many posts, I have decided, like Julia, and Gil, that proportional gerrymandering would be the most convenient method to use. In my honest opinion, I think all the ideas are susceptible to causing problems with disproportional districts and they are all flawed, but realistically, proportional gerrymandering works best. A bi-partisan redistributing committee sounds ideal, but as the video stated, the interests of representatives differ from those of its constituents and the only thing this committee is successful in doing is protecting incumbents. Independent redistricting commissions are just as ineffective and develop skewed districts because the races end up being uncompetitive. Safe elections undermine the principles this nation stands on, so if bi-partisan committees or independent redistricting commissions are used, the democratic essence of elections will be gone. Also, like Julia said, the shortest split-line method puts everything in the hands of technology and that solicits uneasiness from some voters. With this, candidates have to hope they don't have bad luck with the boundaries determined by a computer, and that the election does not end up skewed, as a result. Candidates should not be winning through luck or losing, due to their lack of. Although the bias wouldn't be intentional, skewed election results are still a possible effect from using this method. Technology isn't always as efficient as it is portrayed to be, people are useful too. Therefore, proportional gerrymandering would be the best form to use for redistricting. The person who makes districts does it for the money, and they have no intention of being loyal to one party. If the government pays gerrymanderers to develop fair districts, they will and the problem is solved. Gerrymanderers use technology and statistical models as well, so logic and fairness are present.
(Sorry balanda, the political cartoons make me laugh)

Proportional Gerrymandering

I have to admit those who agree with the Shortest-Split Line, such as Sarah, Zach, and many others have a good point. It is the only way to keep personal and partisan bias out of the redistricting because it involves math, statistics and no feelings or opinions of humans. However, this time I am in full agreement with Gilbert. Just as he pointed out proportional gerrymandering is a weird solution, but as Grey said, it avoids disproportional districts. Leaving our democracy in the hands of technology is not the most comforting idea. That is why, leaving it in the hands of someone being paid to make sure democracy remains fair and free is the best idea. It, is true as some have pointed out, that the person hired by the people to create the districts could be biased, but as Gil said once again, (he and I thought very alike tonight) this person will be payed to be in charge of the redistricting. The money will, whether we think so or not, most definately secure the person into doing whatever the person who pays the highest price would like. In this case it will be taxpayers of this fine nation. The game showed us all that redistricting, especially reapportionment, could be difficult, but even I was able to eventually conquer mission 4, so someone can do it and be paid to do it. To expand on this point, when someone commmits the crime of gerrymandering in favor of a party they do it for the money. So, there is no harm in paying them more so that they complete the gerrymandering in a way that benefits the nation. Also, once again stealing from the brilliant words of Gilbert because i couldn't say it better, with the bipartisan committee incumbents are reelected in their safe districts every year. With the proportional gerrymandering the competitiveness of elections will grow again just as it should in democracy. Therefore, proportional gerrymandering is the most suitable way to take care of the problem of gerrrymandering and protect redistricting.

Shortest Split-Line Method

I am defending the shortest split-line method along with Sarah and many other students.  This method is based on facts and facts only.  It isn't susceptible to any favoring of one party over the other.  The districts are created by math equations, and cannot be persuaded by money or anyone.  It is the fairest and most just way to prevent gerrymandering in my opinion.  In the video, it explains this method by a set of math equations in which the shortest line splits up the districts evenly until the desired amount of ranges are made.  The Congressional Redistricting packet explained many cases in which districts were skewed to favor one person or party.  This method eliminates any possibility of that ever happening.  But as in all things there are flaws, and this method may actually create slightly skewed results based on coincidence over where the lines were drawn.  Yet, even with these skewed results, math doesn't lie and it wouldn't have been on purpose.  The Redistricting Game we played for homework was actual pretty difficult, but gave us a pretty clear insight of what it is like to have to create these districts.  There are certain guidelines you have to meet, and these districts can't look odd or disproportional to each other.  I feel that the shortest split-line would make this job way easier.  It gives you a specific formula to work with, and there is no guessing.  It is a straightforward set of equations that ifs fair and equal for everyone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

Proportional Gerrymandering

Proportional Gerrymandering is the best way to go from here. The Bi-Partisan committee would not benefit America as a people because of the way corruption runs through America and anyone can be paid off. The committee would not be bi-partisan and it would lead to something that would be very hard to reverse due to the incredibly difficult process to change anything in the government. Short-line would also not work because it could lead to worse Gerrymandering which is unintentional, but will still happen because people of the same gender and skin color tend to associate with other people like them. This would lead to a divided government and this would not be beneficial to the general population. However, Proportional gerrymandering would be the most beneficial to the system because of the humanity in the decision. If humans were to make this decision instead of a math equation this would lead to making more precise lines and would not lead to any type of illegal and unconstitutional behavior if done correctly. With a math equation, the lines may not be properly drawn properly and would lead to court cases that would be the cause of the unfairness that would lead because of this. Proportional Gerrymandering is not a great decision, but it is the shiniest of the crap that results from the messed up system we have today and it would be doing the country itself a favor if the legislatures changed the process, but as of now, it is the best way to do it under the circumstances.

Redistricting: The Shortest Split-Line Method

I agree with Lauren, Cara, Sarah, and Zach that the shortesr split-line method is the best and most nonpartisan way to redistrict. While the other methods have good intentions, they are prone to gerrymandering; in fact one of them is exactly that! With this method, the state is first split in half using the shortest line and this continues until you have the desired number of districts. If there are an odd number of districts, the process is almost identical but a bit more complicated (see video for the exact process). Because this method is purely mathematics, there is no argument against whether there is bias held by those in charge of drawing the lines. In the other methods, citizens must trust people to draw unbiased districts, but it is evident that is not possible. If someone is given the opportunity to benefit their party they will most certainly take it. This biased line drawing leads to corruption and one party dominating over another. Also, while playing the redistricting game, it was difficult to keep the districts equal while keeping specific things in mind; the short split-line method eliminates that because it’ focus is making the districts equal. The only fault in this method is that there can be unintentional gerrymandering. Because of the way one district is drawn, it may favor one party over another. Ultimately, the shortest split –line method is the most effective method for redistricting. It is very clear none of the methods are perfect, but the shortest split-line method is the one with that is most unbiased and has the least amount of flaws. This method will eliminate biased redistricting and equally divide the districts; exactly the change that is needed.

This is what Texas and California would look like if the Short Split-Line method was used for redistricting!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

Redistricting - The Shortest Split-Line Method

Along with Cara, Sarah, and Zach, I believe that utilizing the shortest split-line method (in which the shortest lines that split the districts equally are used) as a way to redistrict states is the most favorable method because it is the most unbiased, and thus, the most fair. Math is a much more legitimate decision-maker than a person, because the outcome yielded from an algorithm such as this is one that is a result of pure fact. While a person is very subjective and outcomes can change from one person to the next based on a certain bias that they may hold, math is something that is set in stone and produces a singular outcome all the time. The algorithm used is published and so it can even be checked by citizens to ensure fairness. Even in more fair methods such as proportional representation, there is a chance that a single person can influence the map in a way that benefits a certain party - and this cannot even be checked by the average citizen, which gives an advantage to elite groups. Of course, hiring one person to create maps that very obviously hold tremendous impact in the political process doesn't sound very democratic in the first place. It is clear that other methods, then, are much less fair to the whole population when compared to the shortest split-line method. Cara makes a good point - while in other systems, disputes may arise because the map has a skewed look and appears to have favored a certain party, the mathematical approach of the shortest split-line method makes it indisputable because it is unarguably factual. In other words, this method would be more widely accepted by people and there would be less controversy due to the unquestionable, unbiased validity of math. Yes, there may sometimes be outcomes that are unfavorable and group underrepresented people into districts where their voices are not given as much power as they probably should have, but when this is weighed against the often disproportionate results that would surely result from the use of other mechanisms, this error by default is much more favorable than intended favoritism that certainly occurs when this task is put in the hands of people. While in other systems the effect may be exaggerated purposely and crushingly, as seen in the redistricting game when we had to fulfill certain missions to benefit ourselves in some way, in the shortest split-line method is something that, for lack of a better term, just happens. If someone doesn't like the way it turned out for them, then they have the next decade that may bring improvement, since in this system, it is just luck of the draw, not luck of the elite.

Louisiana map, according to the split-line method using data
from the 2000 census.

Shortest Split-Line Method is the Best Way

I agree with Carrigan, Zach, and Sarah saying the best way to end gerrymandering is by using the shortest split-line method to evenly, and fairly divide up the districts. The shortest split-line method uses math to evenly divide up the map by drawing the shortest lines possible and continuously dividing up the region into sections until there are the appropriate number of districts. Since this method is based purely on math, this solves the biggest problem of gerrymandering, dividing up the districts so they are fair and no incumbent or candidate has an unfair advantage in the election. Also, as CGP Grey mentioned in the video, there is no way to be certain that even the most fair judges and experts are not deliberately shaping the districts in order to benefit their party since as Hobbs has said, all people do what is in their best interest and worry about themselves. Since the shortest split line method uses only math to split up the regions it is the most fair way. However, even though the method is the most fair, there can be a few negative results from the method. Since the districts are divided randomly, it is a possibility that one region could unintentionally be filled with people of the same party with the same beliefs. This would cause an unintentional skewing of the districts which looks like there has been gerrymandering there, even though it was not done on purpose. The likelihood of this occurring however, is extremely unlikely and does not happen a majority of the time. Therefore, the best and most fair method for redistricting is the Shortest Split-Line Method since it is based purely on math and is not deliberately drawn in favor of any party.

Proportional Gerrymandering

 It is very clear that Proportional Gerrymandering is the most appropriate way to help put an end to the gerrymandering that we all know today. By using proportional gerrymandering, We the People would pay someone to make districts that have very competitive elections or to draw districts to represent the population proportionately. Based off the redistricting game that was played, it would be a difficult job, but very possible.
        It would also make us a better democracy by doing this. A true democracy would have free and fair elections. By making mainly competitive districts, it would make the elections more fair. The incumbents in Congress want gerrymandering to make safe districts, but the people want competitive districts. By paying a person to make competitive districts, it will get that process out of politics, plus not only that, but according to CGP Grey, it is the best way to avoid disproportionate representation. With competitive elections, the results would reflect the thoughts of the people more closely. The only problem is that the person that makes the maps could end up being a little bit biased, but by paying them to make competitive districts, that would get rid of that problem. Also, with the split line method, the results may not represent the results of the people accurately, which is bad in a democracy where the thoughts of the people should be represented accurately. Also, it would get rid of unfair influence that political parties may have by using normal gerrymandering because it would not have any party influence over district borders. It would be obvious that the districts would be more fair based on Iowa's districts too as shown by the political cartoon below. Overall, this solution of proportional gerrymandering would solve most of the problems of normal gerrymandering by creating a more free and fair system by making districts that represent the population accordingly or by making the elections more competitive.

Gerrymandering

I have to agree with Kayla and Hannah that the most effective form of redistricting is proportional gerrymandering.  This process makes the most sense because it is the only form that best avoids the backlash of disproportionate representation, which is, according to CGP Grey, "by far the worst problem of gerrymandering".  Although this way isn't completely free of bias, like the shortest split line method, it keeps things fair by letting the representatives of each district represent equal amounts of people which is proportionate to the state's population.  The method of shortest split line would not be the best choice because it too sporadically chooses district lines and honestly was very confusing for me to try to comprehend so therefore not many people will be able to understand it.  A bipartisan committee would be the worst choice because the incumbency rate would increase if the people in office are the ones creating district lines because they would gerrymander so that they get elected again.  This is not fair or democratic in the slightest.  Lastly the independent redistricting commission process wouldn't be a good choice either because they are very similar to bipartisan committees in that they typically group together similar groups which makes very noncompetitive elections and keeps incumbents around.  It is odd, but the best way to get rid of the bad affects of gerrymandering and malapportionment is with more gerrymandering.

An End To Gerrymandering....by Gerrymandering???

I believe that the best way to create districts that actually reflect the population within the states is to use proportional Gerrymandering. With a bi-partisan committee creating districts it will ensure for high incumbency rates and in the end it's not the people's needs that are being met but rather the representatives' needs. In deciding to use a nonpartisan council the districts may be created in a way that groups together similar ares so that elections are not competitive and the needs of the people are not being met. This is a possible issue or there is always the issue with possible corruption. Not all of the member son the nonpartisan council can be nonpartisan and could be bought one way or the other to secure the race for one party over the other. In allowing district lines to be created through a mathematical formula you completely erase the possibility of human corruption because the computer is not looking at party affiliation more than population and the need for equal representation. That sounds great, however, there is always the possibility that the computer creates districts in which results are inaccurate simply our of bad luck.
The only real solution that can avoid the influence of partisanship and computer error is by hiring a gerrymanderer to work for the people rather than for the parties. It's the best way to avoid disproportional representation and it creates districts that actual reflect the ideals of the population. It is the only option that can really have a human go in using the mathematical algorythm to create districts then allow them to be fine tuned so that there are no issues that could lead to skewed elections.

The bottom example on the right shows the power of a gerrymanderer with good intentions that could create districts in which there are competitive races among candidates and the needs of the people are actually met.

I want close this blog post by saying there is no perfect way to ensure the districts represent the people within in them fairly. I just believe that, theoretically, if the government can acquire someone who believes that drawing districts is an art and make it so that are not corrupted by one side or the other than a fair representation of the people can be achieved.

The Shortest Split-Line Method of Redistricting

I agree with Sarah and Zach on their views on the shortest split-line method.  Although it has a few flaws, I believe that overall it is the best method to solve gerrymandering.  The shortest split-line method is directly based on math, proving that no bias can come out of it.  In this plan you simply draw the shortest line that evenly distributes the districts.  CGPGrey does a great job describing this method in his bonus video.  He clearly describes how simple it is to draw the districts with this method, rather than the complex way it is done now.  We all can agree that currently drawing lines is extremely complicated after doing the Redistricting game, so it would be a relief to have math do it all for us.  The shortest split-line method also works for an even or odd number of districts in a state too.  The only flaw in this method is that the shortest line can unintentionally produce a district that doesn't represent the majority of it's state. The good side of this is that it is the main disadvantage of this theory and that it is rare, and in a few years the lines will be redrawn because the population will change, which causes this disadvantage not to mean too much.  Overall, the worse thing this method can do it give one district a temporary advantage.  In the homework readings and game there were many court cases against a district line.  With this method you eliminate all of these cases because one person will not be drawing the lines in anyones favor, it will all be up to math.  Also, there are constantly complaints about the shape of a district, but with this theory that will no longer remain a problem.  With this method all of the district shapes will be simple lines.  A state should not trust one person to draw the district lines as it is very easy for that person to draw the lines in favor of a party in exchange for political success or money, but the shortest split-line method eliminates this temptation and secures unbiased districts.  Overall, this method provides the most secure ways to eliminate gerrymandering.

Indiana 2007-Split-Line 

Indiana 2007-official

            

Proportional Gerrymandering

I agree with Kayla in the fact that proportional gerrymandering best resolves the problem. Like Mr. Grey said in the video, it is really weird and out of the ordinary to solve the problem by using the problem. However, it is the only one that made the most sense on my terms. This is because if each district is going to be proportional to another, this will sort of make the job of the representative a little easier. This is because each representative will have roughly the same amount of constituents which would have them all on an even playing field. This could strike a problem because nobody would have a majority, but it could be more beneficial in the end. I don't believe that the shortest-split line method is beneficial because if you are randomly drawing lines to divide up a state, there are many factors that aren't being taken into consideration. There could be mixed demographics which would make policy changes harder on the representative. There could also not be a majority within the district or one party that is more present than another which would allow for decisions to be tougher to make. In the end I think that the best way to solve gerrymandering problems is by using proportional gerrymandering.

Shortest Split-Line Method

From the Game, and articles we have read its evident that the main reason Gerrymandering is a problem is because people have bias for one party or another.  The Congressional Redistricting packet showed 2 cases in which the districts were drawn to favor a party.  This problem arose from the bias held by those in charge of drawing the lines.  In the Redistricting Game, we saw several clear circumstances in which lines were drawn in order to favor one party or even just secure the votes for each party.  As CGP Grey discussed in his video, allowing people to create the lines can lead to corruption in all situations. Whether you have one person purposefully Gerrymandering to try to reverse the effects brought on by it in the first place, or have a commission dedicated to making unbiased lines, either situation holds room for bias to get in the way of creating a fair political landscape.  This the reason as to why I have decided that the Shortest Split-line Method of redistricting is the most effective way of going about this issue.  Relying on solely mathematics will end the issue of having biased people corrupting the districts lines, which is Gerrymandering's main issue.  While CGP Grey had discussed the issue of unintentionally skewing the districts as if they were being Gerrymandered, this option still holds to being the best option.  There is no perfect way to solve this problem, but the Shortest Split-Line method is the closest.  This option leads to population equality and eliminates the issue of biased line creators.  These two factors alone are reason enough to switch to this method.  

  

Proportional Gerrymandering

The method that would best solve the problem of gerrymandering is the proportional gerrymandering solution. Though it seems strange to cure the problem by using the problem itself, it makes the most logical sense for our democracy. A bi-partisan committee would not solve much because it prevents new candidates from ever getting elected in a district since the incumbents of both parties specifically redraw their district lines to ensure that they will be re-elected. An independent commission usually has the same results as the bi-partisan committee or it is not effective because the experts redrawing the lines actually do have an opinion, causing corruption to find its way back into the system. The shortest-splitline algorithm seems like the best solution because it is completely random, but sometimes the resulting districts are too random and do not properly represent a state's population. The best way to represent what the people want without corruption is with proportional gerrymandering. This method arranges the district in such a way that the winning candidates of each district represent an accurate proportion of the whole states's population. Of course, this method still has flaws since it would most likely result in high incumbency rates due to the districts being created to deliberately allow one party to win. Though the proportional gerrymandering is not the perfect solution, it best supports American democracy and fairly gives accurate representation to the people.

The Short Split-Line Method

Im choosing to defend the Short Split-line method one of CGP's four gerrymandering solutions. This method works solely through the process of math and solving equations. Unlike the other three solutions, it does not leave any one person to draw the lines. Instead, it works through a process of math equations in which the shortest line splits up the districts evenly until the desired amount of ranges are made, as explained in the video.  I think this method would work the most efficiently because it would be impossible for the elections to ever be skewed by a person's own judgment. In the Congressional Redistricting packet we annotated, it brought up several cases in which districts were drawn in favor of certain candidates. This new method would help the incumbents problem as it mixes up the districts. I understand that at some point the math can end up working against the whole process and skew an election by the way it divided certain areas. However, this mathematical mistake will not cause controversy because, like I said before, the process is solely just math.
As we have seen from the Redistricting Game we played for homework the other night, it is not as easy as a job as some of us may have thought. The game involved problem solving, shape making, and certain requirements to be reached. As I played the game, I realized how difficult it was in creating districts that were not oddly shaped or strange looking. This is another reason I think the Short Split-line method would be one of the better methods mentioned in the video. It creates a simple, unbiased, and quick solution to the corrupt way of gerrymandering. If you are reading my post and still disagree with my point of view then watch the video Mr. Balanda posted for extra information on this method. It explains it in a rather simplistic way and makes it hard to argue of why it would not work.

Daily Show on Gerrymandering...It's Art?

Here is the Daily Show video we discussed in class as promised. Is Gerrymandering art?

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

CGPGrey Explains Gerrymandering

Our favorite videographer is back! This time Mr. Grey is here to educate us on gerrymandering, as well as some possible solutions to this unpopular electoral reality.



In this video Mr. Grey poses 4 possible solutions to solve our gerrymandering problem:

• A Bi-Partisan Redistricting Committee
• An Independent Redistricting Commission
• The Shortest Split-Line Method of Redistricting
  (Be sure to watch the bonus video on this topic! Fascinating stuff!)
• Proportional Gerrymandering

Blog Post Assignment:

• Choose one of CGPGrey's four gerrymandering solutions and defend it in a detailed and well developed blog post.
• Your post must include information from the video, the homework readings, as well as your experience playing the ReDistricting Game.
• As always pictures, videos, links, etc will add to your grade!

Remember a blog post is not an essay, but it is certainly more than a paragragh!

I understand that it has been a little while since the last time I have asked you to post to the blog, but remember that the purpose of these blog posts is to engage your classmates in a discussion outside of the classroom. Remember politics and life continue outside the classroom. Therefore, our discussion must continue as well! Happy posting!! 

 

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE IN OUR POLL!!

Snow Day Assignments

Below are the materials you will need to complete your snow day assignments:

TED ED Video on Gerrymandering



ReDistricting Game Links
The Game
The Game Log