Gerrymandering: The Motion Picture
Feng decided to take action after receiving a call from a candidate telling her, “You’re not gonna put another [expletive] Asian resident in my district.”
It’s a rare jolt of excitement in an otherwise sobering feature, and even Schwarzenegger‘s fading star power offers little illumination.
Gerrymandering tries to spotlight praise-worthy politicians who wouldn’t mind if the practice went the way of the eight-track tape, but the film doesn’t allow them enough screen time for them to matter.
We’re left with the documentary standby — the “man on the street” interviews — which reveals just how little known “gerrymandering” is among the masses.
The biggest example of redistricting chaos comes in recalling the battle between Texas legislators over plans by Tom Delay to reshape the map in the Republican’s favor. It’s the juiciest story in recent gerrymandering history, but the film spends far too much time with the event’s tiniest details. Yes, the Democrats fled for the cozy confines of a Holiday Inn, but a sharper documentary would burrow into more pertinent findings.
Gerrymandering seems to be under control in Iowa, according to the film. The state enacted a system involving a three-person team to lord over any redistricting requirements. But Iowa’s lack of diversity doesn’t give other states enough of a template to follow, the film warns.
“No matter which way you slice Iowa, you get Iowa,” one expert says. It‘s a hint that the film has little interest in pursuing why particular groups vote in near unison on Election Day.
Gerrymandering ultimately pines for a less fractured republic, one where the far left and far right take their cues from Moderate Nation. It’s something quite rare to see in a genre where liberal giants like Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side) and Michael Moore roam with impunity. It also renders the film a tad dull, and Reichert isn’t able to invest the topic with the mixture of razzle dazzle and emotion to overcome that sad fact.
That makes the film’s curt running time — 77 minutes — and occasional animated snippets all the more welcome. Watching Gerrymandering might feel like a scholastic homework assignment, but it’s important to get the topic on the minds of voters today — and tomorrow.
Be careful what you wish for – you might actually get it.
In Florida Amendments 5 and 6, on today’s ballot, address this matter.
They are supported by the ACLU and NAACP.
Why?
Because, in the fine print, it allows for lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits.
And, as we all know, JUDGES make far better “deciders” that the voters, right?
Umm…NO.
Make that H*LL NO.
The Republicans in Florida oppose Amendments 5 and 6 because they are the ones in power right now. The Amendments set up a series of factors that need to be used when creating districts, including existing geographical and political boundries. The arguments against these amendments have mainly been “guilt by association” — ACLU supports it, so it must be bad. The other argument is that this amendment will end up with the Courts having to decide.
The “guilt by association” argument is politics at its worst. The advertisement I saw had pictures of Pelosi and Obama on an ad regarding a Florida Constitutional Amendment — and the add failed to explain anything about the amendments themselves. (I am a conservative Republican, and these ads sickened me.)
The “end up with the Courts” argument may or may not be true . . . the legislature can, if they are smart, come up with a procedure that will require the Courts to return the redistricting decisions to the Legislature until the requirements of the Amendments are met.
I voted across the board with the Republicans except on this issue. I live in a horribly gerrymandered district, where my vote is worthless for all local elections. It was designed to consolidate heavily Democratic areas across FOUR counties, with long, skinny connectors and odd looking spikes here and there. These amendments may not be the ideal solution, but they are the best option we have so far to stop the ridiculous gerrymandering in Florida.
You’re looking at the big picture (the overall idea of getting rid – or at least reducing the impact – of gerrymandering), but missing the key difference in the wording of Florida’s Amendments: it leaves the door open to the usual suspects bringing up each and every “equally sized” new district before – surprise! – a sympathetic judge, who will – surprise again! – always vote in favor of whatever the ACLU and/or NAACP want.
“Guilt by association”?! RUBBISH.
Read this AND THE COMMENTS: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/a_reform_the_tea_party_should.html
As long as you have Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, there will be Gerrymandering. There is nothing that can be done; it’s like complaining about the rain. Moreover, the solution is not purported nonpartisan commissions. That separates the people from the electoral decisions. Don’t like the outcome of a redistricting, persuade 50 percent of your fellow citizens it was a bad idea and elect a new legislature to redistrict. Don’t think that will work? Then your complaint is with having a democratic republic, not how districts are drawn. Keep the decisions closest to the people, not farther away.
The #1 enabler of gerrymandering is the census. All those questions about race, income, occupation, etc. aren’t just to dish out government loot (which is bad enough) — they also allow politicians to choose their constituents, rather than the other way around. Reduce the census to its 1-question constitutional limit (number of persons at an address, which would fit on a post card) and gerrymandering becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible.
And thus the majority (or the guy who won it) gets to decide how the lines move, therefore the changes will always favor the incumbent. Is that democracy?
Or, here’s an idea, how about appointing some underpaid statisticians and GIS nerds to just come up with a fair set of rules and administer them on a regular (i.e. cast in stone, non-political) timetable, with all of their decisions being open to scrutiny. That’s all they do, and any personal gifts of any kind from politically-connected people or groups will be subject to sensible public-service declaration/ban rules.
It’s not hard to spot if a set of boundaries is skewed – just compare the seats with the popular vote. If one party regularly gets more seats than its share of the vote, it’s broken.
The gerrymandering problem could be solved by a state constitutional amendment stating that each district shall be drawn by such means as to minimize the perimeter while maximizing the area of each district. Simple geometry. Takes all the politics out of it.
The gerrymandering problem could be solved by a state constitutional amendment stating that each district shall be drawn by such means as to minimize the perimeter while maximizing the area of each district. Simple geometry. Takes all the politics out of it.
I think you’ll agree that it’s quite hard to pack circles together. The best you can get is hexagonal districts. But what happens at the borders?
Your idea is basically sound, but it’s not sufficient. Electorates also have to contain roughly equal populations, and that’s the harder problem. There will never be a perfect solution (or even one that gets close), so there will always be choices to make – and that still leaves room for skulduggery. You haven’t made the problem much harder, you’ve just required that the redistricting be a bit more drastic to get the same outcomes.
This is very dangerous indeed. At level 16, Gerrymander becomes Gerrymeleon. At level 36, Gerrymeleon becomes Gerizard. By that point, it would be impossible to stop.
Joking aside, I really don’t know that much about gerrymandering and never gave much thought to it. This could be interesting.
I live in Texas, and one US Representative, Mac Thornberry in the 13th district(which I lived in until two months ago), has to go from the northern most corner of the Panhandle all the way east to Gainesville and south to Mineral Wells, and it’s a weird collection of counties. Just from Dalhart to Gainesville, that’s 400 miles on US 287.
Here’s the map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/TX13_109.gif
Doesn’t make sense to me, but, that’s how it was done.
Want to see gerrymandering? Look at NC 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th districts. Where I live, I am a stones throw from the 1st and 2nd, but live in the 3rd..
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/pubs/maps/nc.pdf
In California, the party in power wants to pass Proposition 27, which would eliminate previously-passed redistricting reform and return redistricting control back to the California Legislature. The California Legislature is currently dominated by one party with a nearly 2-to-1 majority. Just how free and fair do you expect those districts to be?
Perhaps not surprisingly, Proposition 27 is funded by well-connected, big-money donors to the party in power. Many of the donors are not even California residents! It’s also supported by 25 self-serving incumbent politicians, all from the party in power. What a sham!
Californians: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 27!
Proposition 27 Revealed!
http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/09/proposition-27-revealed.html