Skip to main content

View Diary: The cost of gerrymandering (255 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why not go the Non-Partisan way? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beastly Fool, Miggles, bear83

    California in my opinion did it smart by making the redistricting Non-Partisan. Why don't we simply make a drive to get every state to adopt that into its constitution?

    That districts are to be drawn by a non-partisan advisory board? The results might not be quite as good for Ds as partisan redistricting but it's still proven quite effective (Dem supermajority for the first time since the Tax revolt) and best of all it preserves our legacy of being fair-minded first.

    Winning is certainly important, but we must not forget that the means make the end. In more than a few cases, losing is preferable to winning by underhanded means.

    •  Yet another plastic toy knife. (0+ / 0-)

      I don't want to be "better" than them, I want to win. We deserve to have a democratic gerrymander in Cali, but we gave that away one year.

      And probably, (surmising, don't really know) it was a public initiative backed by heavy R-sourced money that caused CA to go with a commission and take away our chances for a democratic gerrymander.

      •  We weren't going to have a Democratic gerrymander (0+ / 0-)

        California Dems were so focused on incumbent protection that they never would have gone for a Democratic gerrymander.  They drew the lines in such a way that even "non-partisan" redistricting was a net plus for us.  

        There was never going to be a Democratic gerrymander in CA.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site