As an opening note, remember I am a Libertarian who votes with the Republicans, think of me as the opposite of Bernie Sanders who is a Socialist but votes Democrat.
Under the Constitution, we conduct a census every 10 years, meaning we count everyone in every; state, county, city etc. For the sake of this blog, I am not going to touch the “illegals were counted” argument. I am simply making a point about the lines drawn. Yes, I am aware and agree that certain states play “creative accounting” with the numbers. After the states finish the count, they send their figures to the feds. The total population then gets divided by 435 (the number of congressmembers) and a number of representatives for each state is determined. Let’s say 800,000 people. Then they take each state’s population and divide by that number and that is how many “districts” they get awarded. States that grow in population may/will gain seats, those who lose population or do not grow fast enough may/will lose seats. Each state is guaranteed 1 congressmember. Obviously for states that lose/gain, they must re-draw their district lines. This occurs once a decade. Some states have the state legislature draw them, others like California have an independent commission. These maps, when approved, go into place, typically for the election in years ending in “2,” for the next decade. Sometimes these maps are delayed by courts, or the voting rights act. Typically, this is due to racially altered districts, I’ll explain more below.
So, the Republicans in Texas, via Trump, decided to re-draw their lines for the upcoming election. While this is not specifically forbidden, they do not gain or lose seats, they just redraw the lines. They drew the new lines in such a way as to try to “gain” 5 Republican seats. The 90-day guy needed a new pair of man panties upon hearing this, it was the best news ever! They then moved on to Missouri redrawing the lines to obliterate the Democrat representing Kansas City. Ditto in North Carolina with a Democrat representing a “swing seat.” This is like shooting fish in a barrel, right? Then Comrade Newsom in California decided he would get in on the fun, and the voters passed an initiative to adopt new Democrat drawn lines, and suddenly it wasn’t so fun for Republicans. I will give Newsom credit, we have an “independent” commission, and he went to the voters and the voters approved a measure to override the commission and adopt new maps. I am not saying Its right, but it was the correct process. From what the interwebs are saying, Virginia, Maryland, and Illinois are kicking around the idea of re-doing their maps. Those would benefit the blue team. As a side note, Ohio was forced by the courts to re-draw their map, it appears the red team will gain a couple, Utah was required to re-draw theirs, blue team will gain one.
So, as you can see, we have bedlam.
The red team is angry that the blue team is doing it, the blue team is saying the red team started it. Truth is both couldn’t be more wrong. What the Founders had in mind were districts drawn so that regions/areas/cities/towns with the same needs get a representative who serves their interests. Think of it like this; if the Geater Sacramento area was in one district, the representatives could focus on; infrastructure, public transit, redevelopment funds, things bigger that more developed cities need. On the other hand, places way up north of Sacramento like Chico, Red Bluff, and the rural cities nearby have completely different needs; timber industry, farming, rural internet etc. My point is, what these maps did, was put the rural areas in with parts of the large cities, (both sides did this) to create districts the other side cannot win. For example, what do Santa Rosa and Sonoma have in common with Alturas and Chico? Outside of smoking weed, I’d say very little, but it now has 45% Democrat registration making it unwinnable for a Republican. This is a common theme both parties used, it’s been going on for years, but the pedal was pushed to the floor this go round. Also, both parties “shored up incumbents,” meaning they took members who may lose their seats and put people/areas containing large amounts of voters from the other team into a neighboring district. Think of it like this, as far as Northern California is concerned, if you remove some rural parts of Kevin Kiley’s district, and replace with a city like Rancho Cordova it could suddenly become unwinnable.
The other issue I have is that this sets a dangerous precedent going forward. How often will we be redrawing these seats? Let’s use this example. A congressperson from a former safe seat wins by only 4% due to shifting demographics. Do you re-draw the lines shifting parts of the closest “big city” out or draw in more of the “rural area or military base” in? To be clear, I am targeting both parties here. This would mean we become a banana republic, and sadly we are getting very close to being one.
What is my solution? Well, nothing is perfect, but I would start by saying cities should not be split up. For example, the City of Nashville should have representation from 1 person, not be “cut up” into four pieces and spread out making it impossible for a Democrat to win. Likewise in California, there should be 2 Republicans representing rural northern seats, not 2 Democrats representing Bay Area/Norcal hybrid seats. This actually gives representation. The idea here is the rep from a city will argue for certain things and against others, also bringing perspective from city life, the rural rep will do the opposite. This is healthy. By carving up Nashville or putting Bay Area cities in with northern rural areas, they do not get a voice. Frankly there is no point in even visiting there.
As far as competitiveness goes, I doubt many seats will be competitive but at least the maps would create actual representation. The other point here is states would likely be sending a coalition of representatives that looks like their states voting demographics. I mean shouldn’t CA be sending about 38% of its representation as Republicans? Ditto in Texas for Democrats? The way the lines are currently being drawn creates an out of whack representation demographic. Does anyone think North Carolina, a literal toss up state in presidential elections should send 11 Republicans in a 14 seat delegation?
With all the talk of rigged elections, doesn’t this actually seem like rigging an election? Creating a district your guy cannot lose? Or even being remotely challenged?