"The south" has been gerrymandered

[boolean]

The south (And the midwest, for the most part) has been gerrymandered to have more power than it ought to have. The Senate, in fact, is an entire gerrymandering scheme. Two senators per state, no matter what the population. This gives Utah and North Dakota for example, a disproportionate amount of representation. Orrin Hatch gets to cancel out Barbara Boxer's vote.

This is why people have the notion that the majority of the country is conservative. It's just not true. Every poll shows that most people are pro choice, pro gay, (at least for "civil unions"), anti war, pro universal health care, etc...The conservatives, who largely live in rural areas, get more power than the liberals by the way the very system is set up.

Given years of GOP rule in many places, lawmakers have successfully been able to remap congressional districts as well. Tom DeLay did it in Texas, for example.

It's the very SYSTEM that has kept conservatives running things for so long. And the majority - the liberals - resent that. The conservatives in these rural areas love to call us out on that. They love to say that we "look down" on them. Well, we ought to. Conservative ideology has long been discredited. It just doesn't work.

But these people are NOT the majority. WE are. It may be time for another revolution. When you look at the parliamentary systems of Europe and Canada, you see why the educated (ie. Not ignorant) progressives rule the day. Those systems do not give the regressive conservatives all the power. In addition, those systems allow multiple party rule. You have CHOICES in those systems, and for the most part, conservatives don't get the majority, because most people realize that conservative ideology is a massive pyramid scheme to keep the people ignorant so that the rich get richer.

Unfortunately, after so many decades of conservative rule, an entire generation of people are lost. They just don't know any better, so they stick with conservatism. This has made things worse. (It's why a full 30% STILL support this moronic president. 50 years ago, it would've been 10%, if even that, by now...)

A rigged system that continues to spread ignorance. That's what we're fighting.

[Sequoia]

1. Who invited "gerrymandered" ? Funny word.

[Chipper Chat]

3. Elbridge Gerry

you can g00gle it

[Kilroy003]

6. Yeah - him and a salamander...

The shape which the first 'gerrymandered' district resembled on a map.

[Sequoia]

7. Well, with a name like that it's no wonder.

[sam sarrha]

2. i think we will fix that before the next election

[Bucky]

12. That's not "gerrymandering" and it can't be fixed

Sorry, but the two Senate votes per state arrangement (called the Connecticut Compromise) can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment. There is of course no way that 2/3s of the states are gonna approve repealing the Connecticut Compromise.

[tcfrogs]

4. What about all those years before 1994?

When the Democratic party was in control of Congress? Was that gerry-mandered also?

[flyingfysh]

5. this is why there are North Dakota and South Dakota

instead of just Dakota.

[HereSince1628]

8. Geez. The reason we have a House and Senate is because

of a compromise in how representation should work. I think it was called something like "The Great Compromise"

[slackmaster]

13. Either "Great" or "Connecticut" IIRC

Tinkering with it would be very dangerous.

[clichemoth]

9. It's the Electoral College.

It's designed to grow with population, but since the arbitrary cap of 535 was placed on it, progressive-leaning Northern states (and California, which should by all rights have more house seats and electoral votes than it does) have been screwed in favor of Texas, Florida, and Arizona.

[tcfrogs]

10. But the states are proportionally allocated properly

At least every 10 years. I don't see your argument that California deserves an exponential amount more than TX, FL or AZ. It is already done proportionally.

[slackmaster]

11. You're talking about basic checks and balances as old as the country

There are perfectly valid reasons for giving every state an equal voice in the Senate.

Given years of GOP rule in many places, lawmakers have successfully been able to remap congressional districts as well....

Yes, and if you substitute "Democratic" for "GOP", and the statement still holds true (e.g. here in California). Democratic, particularly liberal Democratic, control of the state legislature is significantly out of proportion with the mix of the overall population.

If you want to go tinkering with the Constitution, be careful what you wish for.

[rinsd]

14. You may want to start getting rid of some of your own ignorance

"Unfortunately, after so many decades of conservative rule"

Before 1994, the GOP hadn't been a majority in 40 years.

"The south (And the midwest, for the most part) has been gerrymandered to have more power than it ought to have. The Senate, in fact, is an entire gerrymandering scheme. Two senators per state, no matter what the population. This gives Utah and North Dakota for example, a disproportionate amount of representation. Orrin Hatch gets to cancel out Barbara Boxer's vote."

This was the pact to create a union of states. The larger states get an enormous advantage in the House while the smaller states are put on equal footing for the Senate.

"
This is why people have the notion that the majority of the country is conservative."

People get this notion because compared to many of our fellow Western countries, we are more conservative.

"Those systems do not give the regressive conservatives all the power."

What system gives conservatives ALL the power? The GOP managed to control 2 branches for all of 4 years. Wanna guess how many years Democrats controlled 2 branches?

"In addition, those systems allow multiple party rule. You have CHOICES in those systems, and for the most part, conservatives don't get the majority,"

But they certainly still can do so. See Germany.

[sam sarrha]

15. sorry you dont know what gerrymandering is .. it is rigging the vote for one party..

[Bucky]

16. You might want to do a quick fact check here. It's not the South, but the West

The states over-represented in the Senate are the Mountain West states. The average state has 8.7 House Representatives in Congress. So the following states are underrepresented

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
North Carolina
New Jersey
Georgia
Virginia
Massachusetts


Going strictly by region, the south is underrepresented too. But the region that gets it worst is the northeast, Great Lakes and California. It's probably worth noting that except for Idaho, the northmost tier of Western states (Montana, Washington, Oregon, the Dakotas, Wisconsin & Minnesota) are sending more Democrats into the Senate than Republicans

[lapfog_1]

17. Our founding fathers got a lot of stuff right.

But a lot of them were land owning farmers. Which accounts for some of the things in our form of government.

The Senate is where this is reflected, with, as you say, some sparsely populated rural states having the same "say" as some of our larger states (in population). OTOH, Tester just won in Montana, so it's not always a decisive factor. That being said, some states, especially California, should be split up.

As for the gerrymandering at the House level, well, some congressional districts are just plain silly when you look at them on a map. When it comes to a national voice, where we live should probably have little to do with who we elect. We might consider a method where candidates run nationally, putting up a platform and trying to attract voters, Once you've attracted N voters (somewhere around 460,000) you get a seat in Congress. This can do a lot to kill the pork barrel politics and bridges to nowhere. In the age of the internet, this could work.