Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Courts? Just in state legislatures? Discuss.

I seriously doubt it ever will be. Those who have the power to stop it are the same ones who are working hard every day to keep it going.

polsongrizz wrote:I seriously doubt it ever will be. Those who have the power to stop it are the same ones who are working hard every day to keep it going.

Unfortunately this nails it.

To end it everybody needs to copy the Iowa plan.

HI54UNI wrote:

polsongrizz wrote:I seriously doubt it ever will be. Those who have the power to stop it are the same ones who are working hard every day to keep it going.

Unfortunately this nails it.

To end it everybody needs to copy the Iowa plan.

I think the Iowa plan is great and we should follow it. Problem is, the only way to change this is to have the backing of the majority of public opinion that it needs to be changed and I just don't see the general populace being all that concerned about it. The problem is that the general populace includes a fair number of zealot partisans on both sides of the aisle, and they want it to continue because they think, eventually, with enough gerrymandering, that they can win elections simply by drawing the lines to favor them. And really, in many cases, they are right. There's not enough right minded, sane people to counteract the zealots and hence, why this isn't going to change.

Cali has taken steps to stop this with a Citizens' Commission featuring average joes from all sides of the political spectrum and all areas of the state to re-draw lines. One of the biggest problems of the old gerrymandering era (and we've seen the maps here on CS) is thin, convoluted areas. Another is the isolation of areas from the larger area they identify with. One example that hit close to home was the incessant placement of conservative Lodi with the Bay Area, away from Stockton and Galt (about ten minutes south and north, respectively, from Lodi along the roughly parallel I-5 and CA-99). The Citizens Commission placed us in an area going through Galt to East Sac, which is better than the Bay Area, but not the best. (As an urban area, Sac is a bit more liberal than we are, but not to the degree that the Bay Area is.)

There are still inequities caused by some of the rules (which I can't remember off the top of my head), but on the whole, it's a better deal than we had when the politicians were running it for their own self-aggrandizement.

If Lincoln had sent all the blacks to Liberia like he said he wanted to, there would be gerrymandering in Liberia or something


Sent from the center of the universe.

GannonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Unfortunately this nails it.

To end it everybody needs to copy the Iowa plan.

I think the Iowa plan is great and we should follow it. Problem is, the only way to change this is to have the backing of the majority of public opinion that it needs to be changed and I just don't see the general populace being all that concerned about it. The problem is that the general populace includes a fair number of zealot partisans on both sides of the aisle, and they want it to continue because they think, eventually, with enough gerrymandering, that they can win elections simply by drawing the lines to favor them. And really, in many cases, they are right. There's not enough right minded, sane people to counteract the zealots and hence, why this isn't going to change.

I would say it's more the congress-is-a-bunch-of-crooks-but-not-my-guy mentality than it is the partisanship. Both parties think the other side needs gerrymandering more than their side.

Both parties use gerrymandering to their advantage and their supporters support it when it benefits their party and cry about it when it hurts them.

Chicago Democrats have taken gerrymandering to a new low level. First, using gerrymandering to get pave the way to get rid of other, sitting Democratic Alderman. Two, allowing the alderman who will likely represent the realigned ward to use their aldermanic privilege (a Chicago tradition where alderman have the major say in things such as zoning decisions, schedule for garbage pickup, etc.) to get things done in the ward rather than the alderman who currently represents the ward. This allows the "incoming" alderman to grease the wheels for his/her election.

Who's your alderman?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... as-sposato

Where is TTBF to tell us why this is a good thing?

UNI88 wrote: Where is TTBF to tell us why this is a good thing?

He's somewhere getting lubed and greased.