Talk:Redistricting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We probably need to somehow decide which term has greater usage, reapportionment or redistricting. Whichever one "wins" should be the leading article. -- Stevietheman 15:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Reapportionment is not the same as redistricting. Reapportionment is the process whereby seats are allocated; for instance, after the decennial census in the U.S. seats are reapportioned from states which have lost population to those which have gained. Redistricting in contrast is the drawing or re-drawing of constituency boundaries, far more controversial because of gerrymandering. --Choster 18:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's still controversity regarding Reapportionment in the last-out state. (Utah saying, probably correctly) that if Mormon Missonaries overseas had been counted, they and not North Carolina would have gotten the last seat. Joncnunn 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iowa
Iowa also has a board that's responsible for redistricting, that is in fact instructed to ignore where the incumbents live, the political and racial background of the areas, and are instructed to only look at making districts that are compact and equally populated. The legislature though can veto a plan sending it back to the board, and when that occures, the board must make the districts more equal in population. The legislature can veto that revised plan as well at which point the legislature would take over. A source needs cited on this before adding. Joncnunn 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Missouri
In Missouri, while the legislature redraws the congressional district, there's a state commission responsible for redrawing the state legislative boundaries compossed of equal number of Republicans and Democrats which is required to pass a plan by a 2/3rds vote. If this fails, the Missouri State Supreme Court redraws the lines. A source needs citied on this before adding. Joncnunn 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternatives to Districts
So if the state legislatures have the right to decide on the districts for the US House seats (within reasonable limits), couldn't a state institute a proportional system for its Congressional delegation? I know that in the first few decades under the Constitution, many states used the General Ticket system, which elected the entire delegation on a state-wide ticket, much how most states give all of their electoral votes to a single candidate as a bloc. It seems that if a state were to use a proportional system, it would eliminate all worries of gerrymandering and malapportionment. If a single state (say Missouri (I can at least hope my home state would be the progressive one, can't I?)) legislature were to institute such a system, just think what long-term effects that could have on American politics. But would it even fly? Federations seem to have a tendency to want all political units to operate in a similar fashion, and this would be way outside the American norm. --Xyzzyva 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- States cannot do this because Congress' exercise of its Article I, sec. 4 powers to make rules for how States go about drawing up districts includes a requirement that they use single-member districts. 35.10.230.213 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Article I, section 4 says nothing about single-member districts. We have single-member districts not because of a specific constitutional provision mandating them but because of Supreme Court decisions forbidding other forms of representation. For example, multi-member districts were struck down in many decisions in the '60s and '70s because they were found to dilute the representation of racial minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Dce7 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The norm in America has been experimentation and variation in electoral procedures among the states. Multimember districts are not necessarily prevented by Supreme Court rulings - they are only prevented if they result in discrimination against minorities who would otherwise be able to elect a representative if a single-member district were used. See Thornberg v. Gingles (1986). There have been statutory restrictions against multimember districts, such as in the Reapportionment Act of 1842, but in that case the single-member district requirement was not actually enforced. I'm not sure if there is currently such a statutory restriction in effect. ChrisKennedy(talk) 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was true for most of American history, although I'd say that the norm in America since Baker v. Carr in 1962 has largely been the Supreme Court dictating which forms of electoral systems are impermissible; multimember districts have not been the only form of electoral system ruled (at least in some circumstances) unconstitutional by the Court. I didn't mean to suggest that multimember districts were necessarily prevented. It is true, though, that multimember districts have largely disappeared at the state and federal levels since the Supreme Court first ruled that multimember districts were unconstitutional if they diluted the voting power of racial minorities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or, later, the Voting Rights Act. (It first did this well before Thornburg — see, for example, White v. Regester in 1973.) Some commentators give credit to the decline of multimember districts as an important factor behind the rise in minority representation in state and federal government. I'm also not sure if there's a specific statutory restriction against multimember districts — I'll look into that. Dce7 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I looked it up and single-member congressional districts have been required since 1967 by 81 Stat. 581. If that requirement were repealed, in my opinion multimember districts would likely withstand judicial scrutiny IF they used a proportional (or semi-proportional) representation system (say cumulative voting or CPO-STV) OR were in areas where voting is not racially polarized. - ChrisKennedy(talk) 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above comment didn't say Article I, sec. 4 says anything about single-member districts. It said we have to use single member districts because of Congress' exercise of its Art. I, sec. 4 power to make rules for how States draw up Districts; that is the power by which Congress passed 81 Stat. 581. 35.10.246.164 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I looked it up and single-member congressional districts have been required since 1967 by 81 Stat. 581. If that requirement were repealed, in my opinion multimember districts would likely withstand judicial scrutiny IF they used a proportional (or semi-proportional) representation system (say cumulative voting or CPO-STV) OR were in areas where voting is not racially polarized. - ChrisKennedy(talk) 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was true for most of American history, although I'd say that the norm in America since Baker v. Carr in 1962 has largely been the Supreme Court dictating which forms of electoral systems are impermissible; multimember districts have not been the only form of electoral system ruled (at least in some circumstances) unconstitutional by the Court. I didn't mean to suggest that multimember districts were necessarily prevented. It is true, though, that multimember districts have largely disappeared at the state and federal levels since the Supreme Court first ruled that multimember districts were unconstitutional if they diluted the voting power of racial minorities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or, later, the Voting Rights Act. (It first did this well before Thornburg — see, for example, White v. Regester in 1973.) Some commentators give credit to the decline of multimember districts as an important factor behind the rise in minority representation in state and federal government. I'm also not sure if there's a specific statutory restriction against multimember districts — I'll look into that. Dce7 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The norm in America has been experimentation and variation in electoral procedures among the states. Multimember districts are not necessarily prevented by Supreme Court rulings - they are only prevented if they result in discrimination against minorities who would otherwise be able to elect a representative if a single-member district were used. See Thornberg v. Gingles (1986). There have been statutory restrictions against multimember districts, such as in the Reapportionment Act of 1842, but in that case the single-member district requirement was not actually enforced. I'm not sure if there is currently such a statutory restriction in effect. ChrisKennedy(talk) 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Article I, section 4 says nothing about single-member districts. We have single-member districts not because of a specific constitutional provision mandating them but because of Supreme Court decisions forbidding other forms of representation. For example, multi-member districts were struck down in many decisions in the '60s and '70s because they were found to dilute the representation of racial minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Dce7 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Am I right in assuming the multi-member districts in the past were elected on a "winner takes all" rule? The UK still has some councils with multi-member wards where each voter gets to vote for as many candidates are there are positions to be filled and because of party loyalties it's common for a single party to carry each seat. Or were the multi-members proportional, similar to the STV system used in both Irelands? (Which would be strange as its proponents generally argue it increases minority representation - the opposite of the Supreme Court rationale.) Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
