by AgentR11 » Sun 31 Jul 2011, 11:04:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'S')o isn't the only solution to gerrymandered gridlock de-gerrymandering?
Wouldn't that force politicians to be more responsive to all the people instead of just the 20% radical base?
There is a huge host of problems in trying to make that happen. A math one, for instance, do urban areas stay intact? If so, you've automatically created some safe democrat seats, as well as tipping your average of the rest to 60/40 RvsD. Do rural areas stay intact? If so, opposite is true. If you take both options, you are already approaching 50% safe seats.
Add another, probably not a big deal where you are, but many states have large requirements for majority-minority districts; as one party seems to pander to those minority communities, this creates yet another source of safe seats (overlaps some with urban above), in an imbalanced way.
Another answer, would be a parliamentary allocation style, party X wins 5% of the US votes, they get 20ish seats in the House; this creates a problem in that region specific issues can end up being ignored; not a big deal in Germany or France, potentially a huge problem if you are a member of Party X, and the nearest X representative carrying the mandate of your vote has his nearest office 1500 miles away.
You could pull that allocation style down to states, but the granularity will get nasty for many of the smaller states.
In the end though, current system of safe seats benefits the D's and the R's, since it insures that one of the two will win; and as long as one of those two are winning, the Nobility is content with the result. Thus, there will be no change.
edit: stupid typo