I somewhat disagree that gerrymandering is "bad", simply because it's a subjective term where what someone calls gerrymandering is redistricting they don't like. It's a political tactic that takes advantage of the sillyness of the redistricting process itself. Gerrymandering isn't any worse than redistricting in general, it's just more blatantly ridiculous. Like an obviously non-passing tranny.
Voters should choose their representatives, not representatives their voters.
I agree with that and think redistricting should be done away with or at least based on pre-existing boundaries like counties. You could also have a system where landowners can choose which district they belong to. That said I also don't think large cities should get an equal vote, so I'm perhaps not one to listen to on representation.
Even if you use some kind of algorithm, if it's possible for politicians to create districts unfavorable to some constituents and favorable to one party over another, then that is what will be done. "Unintentionally" or not.
I'm actually more interested in the aspect of it where representatives represent more of a neighborhood. Where they are living reasonably close to the rest of the people they represent. More interested in that than how the count of R's and D's ends up.
Let me be more specific. By gerrymandering I do not mean redistricting (which is basically something you have to do), but redistricting in such a manner to help the incumbents stay in office.
Ideally, the districts should be as competitive as possible, because that forces them to listen to the people. But I do not know if that will work out well in practice.
I somewhat disagree that gerrymandering is "bad", simply because it's a subjective term where what someone calls gerrymandering is redistricting they don't like. It's a political tactic that takes advantage of the sillyness of the redistricting process itself. Gerrymandering isn't any worse than redistricting in general, it's just more blatantly ridiculous. Like an obviously non-passing tranny.
I agree with that and think redistricting should be done away with or at least based on pre-existing boundaries like counties. You could also have a system where landowners can choose which district they belong to. That said I also don't think large cities should get an equal vote, so I'm perhaps not one to listen to on representation.
I've never seen a state where the districts are drawn geographically. Or even in a way that makes close to sense.
Even if you use some kind of algorithm, if it's possible for politicians to create districts unfavorable to some constituents and favorable to one party over another, then that is what will be done. "Unintentionally" or not.
I'm actually more interested in the aspect of it where representatives represent more of a neighborhood. Where they are living reasonably close to the rest of the people they represent. More interested in that than how the count of R's and D's ends up.
Let me be more specific. By gerrymandering I do not mean redistricting (which is basically something you have to do), but redistricting in such a manner to help the incumbents stay in office.
Ideally, the districts should be as competitive as possible, because that forces them to listen to the people. But I do not know if that will work out well in practice.