Redistricting 101

All you need to know about the redistricting "fight" in Minnesota was made very apparent on The Late Debate with Jack and Ben Sunday (10/2) night.  It is the proverbial solution (elect more Democrats) in search of a problem (more Republicans might get elected). 

Whenever you hear one side of contention use language like "we need to have a conversation" you know who's losing the debate so far.  It reminded me of Atlas Shrugged, when railroad president Jim Taggart tries to get his vice president Dagny Taggart to bail him out of all the trouble he's caused.  By this time, she is with John Galt, on strike as it were, and refuses to help.  When she asks, "Is that all, Jim?" he says, "No, no, I want a discussion!"

Our Minnesota Constitution puts the Legislature in charge of redistricting, subject to veto and override like other legislation.  When they cannot agree, the courts settle the matter given the hard deadline of the next election cycle.  As guest Mitch Berg noted, it can be a noisy process as democracy often is but otherwise works as intended.  Rather than change the Constitution however, the left insists on "discussions" and adds what should be irrelevant considerations, some of them quite partisan, some of them frankly racist.  But of course it's OK if the left is partisan or racist since their overall intentions are pure, including the ones about putting them in charge.

If you can, download and listen to the podcast.  Pay particular attention to Ben's point demonstrating the absurdity of creating competitive districts via redistricting.  The leftist panel members from Common Cause and Draw the Line MN agreed that while some DFL areas can never be made competitive by redistricting, there are no such comparable GOP areas.  Hence, redistricting under such a guideline mathematically must "dis-enfranchise" Republican voters.

Let's be honest.  What the left means by a "community of interest" is a DFL stronghold, often a shrinking DFL stronghold.  To base redistricting on such criteria is to dictate that new boundaries for future elections must reflect prior elections under the old boundaries.  As Perry Mason would say, such conditions are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

Me, I think a computer can do redistricting, using nothing more than census data and maps showing city and county boundaries.  That's all that should matter if indeed we still believe in one man one vote.

Comments

[Hiram]

"Hence, redistricting under such a guideline mathematically must "dis-enfranchise" Republican voters."

I think it's basic to understand about voting is that just because your candidate loses, you are not dis-enfranchised. Under no circumstances, does the right to vote include the right to win elections.

[Speed Gibson]

Tell that to the Democrats! That's the essence of their argument.

[Hiram]

Do Republicans really believe they have the right to win elections? That when Democrats win, Republican rights have been violated?

[The Big Stink]

Let the computer draw the lines. I can guarantee which party will throw the hissy-fit.

[Hiram]

I don't know why a computer's lines would be different from anyone else's. Or more or less controversial. Any computer result would have to reflect the assumptions that went into the program, the same assumptions that dictate the line drawing by humans.

[Speed Gibson]

MY computer would pay no attention to prior election results or the "needs" of incumbents. And neither should the humans.

[Hiram]

So why are your assumptions any better than anyone else's?

[Speed Gibson]

Because mine are mathematical, not political. Why should the validity of my vote depend on my neighbor's race, creed, national origin etc? Or who won the last election? One man. One vote. Period.

[Nancy]

I wonder if that's why the DFL purchased the redistricting software and didn't submit their map during the legislative session. It's easier to let their multitude of front groups do the partisan work for them.

[Hiram]

I don't know why the DFL didn't submit a redistricting plan other than that there was nothing to be gained in doing so since it wouldn't have any hope of passage.

[The Big Stink]

Draw a box on a map and determine the size of the box by the number of people inside the box.

End of discussion.

Next?

[J. Ewing]

Someplace around here I have the basic mathematics to do this completely fairly and totally without regard for any boundary except precincts. That is where the process should start. The DFL front groups START with the idea of gaining political advantage. For example, no WAY do you get Bachmann and Kline in the same Congressional district by blindly drawing equal, compact districts. Republicans started with trying to match existing district, city, and county lines.