
Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections - kyledrake
https://delaney.house.gov/news/press-releases/delaney-introduces-bill-to-end-gerrymandering-reform-elections
======
thephyber
While it doesn't sound like a bad proposal and could probably get a strong
majority of votes in some alternate dimension, the party in power will never
allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote.[1]

The more cynical I become, the more I think the party in power doesn't
actually want to solve any problems, they only want to focus on wedge issues
to ensure they can use {rage, fear, some other emotion} to keep their party
constituents engaged enough to vote but not enough to hold their feet to the
fire on getting things done. Incumbents in Congress still have 95%+ re-
election rates and in 2010 when those rates dipped, Congress was remarkably
less productive than usual.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule)

~~~
dvt
> the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the
> House for a vote

The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently
false. The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively
better job at it in the past decade.

In many ways, it was an arms race, and the Democrats chose not to focus on
small and local districts and elections (instead, worrying about the "big
picture"). As it turns out, politics trickles up, and small wins for
Republicans eventually turned into big wins. To see a perfect exemplar of
this, just look at Jon Ossoff's crushing loss last week.

There's an excellent NPR podcast about this very issue I listened to a few
years ago.

~~~
anarazel
> > > the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the
> House for a vote

> The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is
> patently false.

I don't think that's really the implication. At the moment it is pretty clear
that the GOP _currently_ _overall_ benefits more from gerrymandering [1]. And
they _are_ in power, despite having lost the popular vote [2]. The GOP has
control over the WH and both chambers, it'd therefore be political suicide to
change the system now in a way that'd hurt them.

> The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better
> job at it in the past decade.

They've obviously also gerrymandered, I fail to see what that has to do with
OPs point? Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of
gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do
anything about it?

[1]:
[https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380](https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016)

~~~
dvt
> Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of
> gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to
> do anything about it?

Not really. I'm arguing that most (in all honesty, probably all)
gerrymandering complaints by Democrats are sour grapes because they got
outplayed. In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered
district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked
sources.

Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it
doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. I will say that
sometimes, gerrymandering _is_ racially- or religiously-motivated (SCOTUS
heard a case on this a few months ago IIRC), so it can be very problematic in
a few edge cases.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/12/01/californiajust-proved-that-redistricting-reform-isnt-all-
its-cracked-up-to-be/?utm_term=.35637e4379e3)

~~~
shitlord
> Gerrymandering is honestly not that big of a deal and cracking down on it
> doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1].

Please provide more evidence for this claim. Just because it's true in CA
doesn't necessarily mean it's true for the rest of the country.

------
mobilefriendly
This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered
district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped
in his house by two blocks.

[http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-
acca0c6c-9aa4-5159...](http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-
acca0c6c-9aa4-5159-b6ef-82eb618dd4a9-20120909-story.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_\(Maryland_politician\))

~~~
chongli
_Tu quoque_. [0] One of the most powerful fallacies in politics. Shuts down
countless reform attempts. Loved by the corrupt.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

~~~
nostrademons
I'm not sure it's that effective these days. The American electorate just
seems to expect that its leaders will be hypocrites and rewards them for it.

~~~
roywiggins
The world wouldn't run without at least a little hypocrisy. I don't think
hypocrisy is inherently immoral. Some immoral actions are hypocritical, but
some hypocritical actions are the right thing to do.

~~~
jfabre
Can you give a concrete example where being an hypocrite would be the right
thing to do?

~~~
dllthomas
Well, let's say I'm a doctor, I'm well convinced that smoking is quite
harmful, but I find myself too addicted to manage to quit. Certainly, my
nonetheless quitting is the best outcome. But telling people to quit despite
not doing so myself is preferable to telling people not to quit, isn't it?

~~~
ionised
That is not a case of hypocrisy being the right thing, but rather the doctor
doing the right thing _in spite_ of the hypocrisy, not due to it.

~~~
dllthomas
Sure, I don't think you can find a case where hypocrisy is the right thing to
do _for the sake of hypocrisy_. That's not really an interesting observation
when clearly no one places a positive first-order moral value on hypocrisy.

------
kerkeslager
I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to
handle districting doesn't solve anything.

If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm
which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average
location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of
that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Just
moving the problem into committee obfuscates the problem.

~~~
JadeNB
> If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm
> which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average
> location of the district residents is minimized?

I had a colleague (mathematician) who suggested presenting district-ers with a
dramatically distorted map of the region to be districted in which
neighbourhoods were unrecognisable, and all that could be seen was population
density. One could gerrymander such a map all one pleased, but with
(presumably) no better than random chance of thereby accruing a benefit, and
random risk of suffering a detriment.

~~~
ihaveajob
This reminds me of the simple way my brother and I used to split treats (cake,
chocolate, etc) evenly and without fights. One of us would cut, and the other
would choose a piece. That way, you could bet your behind that whoever was
cutting would be as even as humanly possible.

------
macawfish
I'm reading a lot of resignation, and I feel it too. Why is it than when SOPA
came out or when health care is on the line, people rally super hard, but when
election reform is out, there's almost no effort? Why can't we get passionate
about this too?

~~~
nindalf
I think because there are relatively simple solutions to both the problems you
mentioned

* SOPA - don't pass the bill.

* Health care - spend more, if necessary increase the deficit and we'll figure out the problem later through increased taxes or reduced spending elsewhere.

With electoral reform, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is.
Everyone wants to stop gerrymandering but what's the alternative? An algorithm
based on population and population density? That has its own set of issues.
Heck, it's not straightforward even figuring out if a particular district has
been gerrymandered or not. And in some cases, such gerrymandering is
considered desirable - such as when it creates district where minorities are
the majority.

When the problem is hard to define, hard to explain tangibly, hard to provide
solutions for, it's no wonder that people don't get motivated to solve it.

~~~
kem
There are pretty low-hanging fruit out there, though.

Approval voting or ranking are almost universally agreed to be better than
what we have (in most places--some places do have that). That alone would make
a huge change.

Independent districting commissions would be a big step forward.

Election day holidays would help.

Actually, a lot of the stuff in this proposed bill would help.

You're right that there's open questions out there, but it's not like there
aren't solutions that are obvious first steps.

Re: healthcare, I think that's probably even more complicated than electoral
reform. For example, missing from your example are cost-cutting measures, like
requiring more transparency in pricing and charging, and deregulating certain
things to increase competition.

------
aequitas720
Better than open top-two primaries: ranked-choice voting.

Better than districting by committee: multi-member districts.

Election Day holiday: good, but throw in automatic voter registration.

[https://represent.us/](https://represent.us/)
[http://fairvote.org](http://fairvote.org)

~~~
ihaveajob
Multi-member districts are what we have in Spain. While in theory they
increase the proportionality of the election results, the downside is that
there is no clear representative for a district. To whom do I write to
complain when my province has 7 seats in parliament? What if it has 30?

------
jbyers
"Delaney also introduced the Open Our Democracy Act in the 113th and 114th
Congress."

------
drspacemonkey
As a Canadian, this doesn't affect me. But the bill seems refreshingly
straightforward, and introduces several reforms that I would argue seem
desperately needed in American elections.

Sadly, I also have very little hope that this will go anywhere.

~~~
kodis
Sadly, I believe that you're correct: the bill was also introduced in the
previous two congressional sessions, where it presumably went nowhere.

------
rayiner
This is my election district:
[http://imgur.com/a/C1UmB](http://imgur.com/a/C1UmB). It's in the dictionary
next to "illegal gerrymandering." The southwest lobe near D.C. is
predominantly African American, while the northeast lobe near Annapolis is
predominantly Caucasian. Though I can't figure out who is being
disenfranchised.

~~~
maxerickson
Apparently Republicans.

[http://www.fairdistrictspa.com/updates/efficiency-gap-
votes-...](http://www.fairdistrictspa.com/updates/efficiency-gap-votes-cast-
vs-seats-won)

~~~
tptacek
I don't know why this got downvoted. Maryland is infamously gerrymandered to
the detriment of Republicans. Both parties abuse redistricting.

------
zeckalpha
I feel like most of these changes would require a constitutional amendment.

~~~
baron816
We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution.

People act like the Constitution we have came down from the heavens in a beam
of light. But it was written by a bunch of guys who had never lived in a real
democracy before. In fact it was written at a time when there pretty much
hadn't been ANY democracies in the whole world for two thousand years. We've
had two hundred years of experience and hundreds of iterations of the concept
since then, so we have a much better idea of what will work and what won't.

It bothers me so much the passion for the Constitution people have. Yet, there
is almost universal distain for Congress and the entire political
establishment. Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by
the Constitution. Electing different people isn't going to change anything.
Ending Gerrymandering (if possible while using districts) would help, but it
doesn't go far enough. You would still have a two party system. You would
still be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils every time you go to
the polls. And a large chunk of the country would always feel that they don't
have someone in government representing them.

If we want people engaged in government, and to have a government engaged in
them, then we need proportional representation in one form or another.
Anything else is just a bandaid.

~~~
thatswrong0
> We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution.

Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this
new Constitution?

> Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the
> Constitution.

And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the
document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago.

States _could_ , if they wanted to, implement proportional representation
themselves without having to amend the Constitution. It obviously wouldn't
mean that the entirety of Congress is proportional, but it'd be a start.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Seriously. The last Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the
Articles of Confederation. It wrote a new system of government. If you don't
like our elected leaders, understand that a constitutional convention means
giving them, as a convention, absolute power to do anything.

~~~
elihu
Not really; if the convention proposes an amendment that isn't ratified by
3/4ths of states, things stay as they are. Even a constitutional convention
has checks and balances. (Historically, states have used the threat of a
convention to force congress to act on issues where they were dragging their
feet.)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Even a constitutional convention has checks and balances_

Any checks passed before the convention are null and void when it starts. The
checks find force in the constitution being nullified by the convention.
Constitutional conventions are temporary autocracies. Established when needed,
but never to be lightly considered.

------
breatheoften
How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person
supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above
.15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats
allocated to each party. That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof --
suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.

~~~
nindalf
Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their
opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on
politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't
know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this.

Also, the unintended consequence of such an electoral system is that it
encourages extreme views, rather than moving towards the centre. Of course
gerrymandered districts have the same effect, but centrism is worth striving
for, I think. It ensures that a majority of people have a candidate who isn't
far from their own views. You can see how proportional representation would
help parties like the UKIP do far better than they otherwise would have, which
is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation.

~~~
rayiner
> You can see how proportional representation would help parties like the UKIP
> do far better than they otherwise would have, which is not necessarily in
> the best interests of the nation.

In the long run, what's in the best interests of the nation is for the
government to fairly represent as much of the electorate as possible, not a
fictional "middle ground."

~~~
nindalf
I agree with you in principle. But I also think in this particular case the UK
has benefited from the UKIPs absence from Parliament.

------
treebeard901
One solution to the problem might be to increase the number of
representatives. The house was supposed to scale with the population. This was
stopped in early 1900. It's a scaling problem. More people to vote for means
less effective gerrymandering.

------
baron816
The problem with a system that's easy to manipulate is that the
benefitting/manipulating party doesn't like giving up their advantage.

~~~
ruleabidinguser
Being easy to manipulate is already a problem

------
delhanty
I'm political in outlook, sympathetic to the proposal, and like to see
politics on HN as long as it has sort of hacker angle to it.

On the other hand, IMO this sort of story crosses the threshold into general
politics, which in the long term degrades HN and hence doesn't really belong
here.

------
TokenDiversity
I know this is a digression but can somebody tell me what happened yesterday?
Bear with me because I'm not much of a lawyer and I don't get a lot of time to
do my original research so I just get it from TV.

I'm flabbergasted that the SC was 9-0 in their decision. I guess I just don't
understand. I thought the lower courts had applied the ban unanimously and it
was made in accordance with the law. Is there a way to challenge yesterday's
decision further?

------
heurist
Expect this to become a much bigger issue leading up to the redistricting that
comes after the 2020 census.

------
shmerl
Will this help reducing de-facto duopoly of incumbent parties?

------
FellowTraveler
TERM LIMITS

------
notadoc
Surely guaranteed to go nowhere.

~~~
heurist
Solid start though. Even if the redistricting measure was dropped, a federal
holiday for election day and top-two primaries would clear out a lot of the
clogs in our election systems. I'm not sure the top-two measure is
constitutional though.

~~~
notadoc
Oh I agree that it's a good start and gerrymandering is bad, but can you
honestly imagine this type of bill passing in this political environment?
Congress has a, what, 12% approval rating?

~~~
heurist
I think it's being presented in the hope that a future Congress will run with
it. Or that his constituents will appreciate his ideas. It is beyond this
Congress to fix the system they've brazenly manipulated for their own benefit.

------
CalChris
We have gerrymandering at every level, but first with the States. Why does
Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? We have 12% of the
population of the US. Wyoming has 0.18%, smaller than DC. Of course, this
continues with the House and the Electoral College. Et cetera.

However, there is no incentive for Wyoming and ND and Alaska and ... to fix
this.

No Taxation Without Representation? Sure, but that doesn't mean the
representation has to be fair.

~~~
marcell
This is going downvoted to oblivion but I think it's a fair point. The Senate
/ House divide made a lot of sense for 13 colonies, which were kind of like
separate entities, but doesn't make as much sense now. For example, why are
North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? If they were merged, and became
just Dakota, would anyone notice? Why should they get double representation in
the Senate vs. California? If anything, having North and South California
makes more sense.

I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before
it is reformed in a fair way.

~~~
mitchty
> For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states?

Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote
Republican.

> If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice?

Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant
of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.

> Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?

Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for
proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High
School.

> If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.

You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_\(proposed_Pacific_state\))

~~~
marcell
This seems like a bit of a troll?

You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes
sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans...
wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit
reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it
would give 200 Republican votes in the senate.

Also:

> Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant
> of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.

And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they
are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.

~~~
mitchty
> This seems like a bit of a troll?

Umm, no, thats the accepted reason why the territory was split in two instead
of becoming a state outright.

From Wikipedia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory)
because apparently one must link history or be called a troll.

> Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each
> party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the
> beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed
> that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington
> should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic
> and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a
> compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won
> majorities in Congress and the Senate later that year. To head off the
> possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to
> statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was
> divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it
> into law on February 22, 1889 and the territories could become states in
> nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin
> Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux
> reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land
> became available to settlers

> And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold
> they are the same state.

Yet they're the same state today, and North and South Dakota are not. Are you
proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the
one state to have separations due primarily to population? Just so that it is
more "fair" for Californian Senate inputs? The reason for the senate being 2
per state was to allow each state equal voting ability amongst states so that
populated states couldn't easily override less populated states.

~~~
marcell
> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California
> to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population?

You're ignoring my overall point. The concept of "states" doesn't make sense
in the way it did when the country was formed. The 13 colonies were actually
separate states, with separate governments and economies that agreed to join
together to form a single state/country.

However, as you pointed out, the process of creating states became political.
An example (as you showed) North/South Dakota were split for political
reasons, to achieve a certain voting outcome. The criteria being used to
separate them is a political one, not something based on separate economic
structures, or separate governments, or some other notion of what a "state"
is.

This shows that the notion of a "state" has changed since the late 1700's.
Some current "states" are the result of political calculations, where as the
original 13 states were separate entities in some other sense.

> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California
> to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population?

I'm saying the entire concept of a "Senate" with 2 reps for each "state"
doesn't make sense today. It's an outdated concept from a different reality.

The Senate does have other useful properties, of course, but the current
division of states doesn't make sense.

------
arthur_trudeau
Current US law requires racial gerrymandering to ensure blacks are able to
elect black congressmen. This bill does not obviate that requirement.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-
a-widespread-practice-to-politically-empower-african-americans-might-actually-
harm-them/?utm_term=.68d70f6094f4)

~~~
thescriptkiddie
Your article it out of date. Racial gerrymandering is the one kind of
gerrymandering that is not allowed according to the supreme court[0].
Representatives will go out of their way to argue that their gerrymandering is
purely partisan because that's totally legal – for now.

[0] [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/supreme-court-
no...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/supreme-court-north-
carolina-racial-gerrymander-case-voting-rights/)

~~~
arthur_trudeau
That is incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision is with respect to
"overconcentration" of blacks, in a context where, when divided, they were
able to elect their preferred candidates. Their guiding principle is still
that blacks must be neither diluted enough to make their votes irrelevant in
"their own" areas, nor concentrated enough to make their votes irrelevant
outside - as the dissent notes, this itself amounts to a racial gerrymander
(you don't get to club yourself in the head when drawing district lines and
"forget" that certain areas are heavy in both blacks and democrats). They did
not overrule Gingles, they cite the state's action as contravening it.

Unsurprisingly their jurisprudence on this is a shitshow as they try to square
this circle while pretending like it is some sort of neutral
antidiscrimination provision while also attempting to secure a minimum
threshold of black political power.

