She Knows She's Going To Lose Her Election. She's Running Anyway.
Kate Barr is running for state senate in North Carolina, hoping to raise awareness about the effects of gerrymandering.

Kate Barr has no chance of winning this election, and she knows it. Barr is running as a Democrat for North Carolina's 37th state senate district. If things go as expected, she'll get around 30 percent to 35 percent of the vote.
That's because Barr is running in a gerrymandered district. To have a chance of winning, Barr would need an astonishing statistical anomaly—a "99th percentile kind of blue wave," as she tells Reason, to get elected. But just because Barr's campaign is doomed doesn't mean she isn't going to have fun on the way to defeat.
"I've been training to lose this Senate race for all of my life," reads the glib "about" section on Barr's campaign website. "I voted for Al Gore in 2000, cheered for Carolina basketball during the Matt Doherty era, and watch the Carolina Panthers on Sundays (shudder)."
Barr says she was motivated to run after watching antigerrymandering efforts face losses at the Supreme Court and state-level courts. Last year, the North Carolina Supreme Court—following a flip from Democratic to Republican control—reversed its own decision that had ruled partisan gerrymandering illegal. In the new map that followed, the heavily democratic Charlotte suburb Barr lives in was redrawn to be included in a district dominated by the much more rural and conservative Iredell County.
"When I learned about gerrymandering at that point," says Barr, "I was like, 'this is what's making our politics feel so extreme.'"
These changes haven't just affected state-level races like Barr's. In 2023, the Republican-controlled state house approved a congressional map that will likely flip three Democratic seats—halving the state's Democratic representation in Congress.
Partisan gerrymandering—drawing an electoral map to make uncompetitive districts—happens across the political spectrum. Even in states where redistricting is done by a bipartisan commission, gerrymandering is still frequently used to keep incumbent politicians in power.
"When you let incumbents make the rules, they make the rules for incumbents," says Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "Generally when it's done by insiders, the interests of the voters in getting a lot of competitive districts or in getting simply neutral, impartial districts where politics was not part of what made them draw the lines, gets kicked aside and you get different degrees of artificiality, which are depending on a combination of how shameless they are and whether or not there are any legal constraints."
"I decided to run specifically because it's a losing race," Barr says. "I really believe that we can't fight things that we won't face. And so, I had wanted someone to run in a gerrymandered district and be honest about what that means. And I then sort of realized that I might have to be the one that did it." Barr says she decided to go all in on the frank marketing strategy after a friend suggested her slogan. "We were joking around about what it would mean to run a losing campaign and just brainstorming all these different truly hilarious kinds of taglines and slogans that you can use when you just come out of the gate as a loser. And she said, 'clear eyes, full hearts, can't win.' And I was like, 'my God, we have to do it.' And so I filed two days later."
Barr says she wants to raise awareness about gerrymandering while also keeping a positive outlook. "Gerrymandering and its impacts are very serious, but that doesn't mean that we have to be," she says. "In North Carolina, we have kind of a long road to getting fair maps back and we can walk that road joyfully and have a good time and still make a difference. And I personally am exhausted from all of the crisis aversion, fear-based political messaging that is happening really all the time, but especially right now…being serious all the time will cause people to wear out."
Barr says that she's had a positive reception even from many Republicans living in her district. "The incumbents' ability to keep their job is dependent on them making the mapmakers happy. And so even Republicans in my district feel ignored in this system," she says.
When asked what she would do if she ended up winning her race in November, Barr laughs. "Something truly bizarre would have to happen for me to win," she says. "But I'll go to Raleigh and represent this district with the best that I've got."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kate Barr the door!
Is she barred from winning?
She felt is was her duty to make a stink about this and, like any other Barr in a gerrymandered swimming pool, it was going to take a massive blue wave to get rid of her.
Lacey Underall may be the most underrated movie girl of all time.
Two Caddyshack references in one day! (Check the roundup for Mitch Cumstein)
if they were both from mad. they don't count lol
Effectively eliminating gerrymandering outside of extremely local issues would be simple. Resize districts down by over an order of magnitude in population and increase Rep count accordingly.
There are much better ways.
1. Allow any border parcel owner to shift his parcel to the other side of the border. City, county, state, even national for that matter, and of course purely political districts which are the issue here.
OR
2A. Representatives cast as many votes in the legislature as they won in their election. I call it proxying.
2B. Elect three winners from each district, each casting their own election wins.
2C. Choose one random voter to proxy all the remaining election votes. It makes sure everyone's vote is counted, and people who voted for marginal candidates at least have some chance of being fairly represented, as opposed to the overall winner claiming to represent the people who explicitly voted for someone else.
2D. In addition to passing by 2/3 proxies, bills must also pass by a 2/3 head count. This prevents popular districts from using their excess popularity to swamp others.
Other advantages are confusing the hell out of pundits and politicians trying to predict votes and trade with each other. "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine" kinda falls apart when they have different proxy counts.
Or elect at-large representatives instead of using geographical districts.
Or use proportional representation, instant runoffs, approval voting, or any other voting system.
That said, I like your ideas too. Very creative.
I left out the really creative bits.
For instance, have private election companies. No government election control other than the really basic, like dates.
You want to be a candidate? Sign up with as many election companies as you think necessary. Pay their fees, follow their rules.
You want to vote? Pay their fee. You get one vote. Choose your election company with care, vote for their candidates. They ink your finger to prevent voting more than once. You get a receipt with the date and location of the election, not when you voted. It also shows all your votes. And finally it shows a randomized receipt ID. It does NOT show your name or address or anything else which can identify you.
No absentee ballots or remote voting. It’s all in person.
Election companies hire multiple poll watchers who count everybody voting.
When voting is over, all election companies publish all those receipts, and everyone can add up all the totals. Fraud is really hard:
* If the ballot count if very far from what the poll watchers counted, whoops! Throw out all those votes. Tell everyone who has a receipt to come back and vote again, free, at the election company’s expense, possibly with competitors.
* If your published receipt does not match the printed receipt you have, show it as proof of fraud. Yes, it will publicize your votes, but it will encourage other voters to check and uncover fraud, and the system can bake in a reward too. If one out of 100 voters think that’s a worthwhile tradeoff, that limits fraud to such small amounts as to not matter.
* This combines with proxying election votes in the legislature to reduce the incentive for fraud. In a traditional winner-takes-all election, stuffing 10 votes can be the difference between winning and losing. In this proxy system, 10 stuffed votes may raise your candidate from 3rd to 2nd or 2nd to 1st, but it barely makes a dent in total or individual proxies. It can swap 3rd winner and 4th loser, but all that really does is give the amateur 10 more proxies.
Or elect at-large representatives instead of using geographical districts.
This might be my favorite, but I'm sure there are downsides to that as well.
Local issues can still be in play-- and you always want to avoid "the mischief of factions".
Arizona does this in some cities for city council. City can vote for any race. It went from a 3-2 split to 5-0. Because the majority could install all 5 council members leaving no representation.
All-at-large is awful. It guarantees single-party rule and puts the 'tyranny of the majority' problem on steroids.
What better ways? With the advent of widespread realtime electronic video communications the only "bad" is that the individual power any rep wields reduces. Moreover, with smaller populations involved in voting, the probability of third parties being seen in a given election at the federal level increases by multiple orders of magnitude.
Or, like, make a bunch of squares.
The two valid reasons for gerrymandering are geographical obstructions, natural or human made, and African American representation in congress. Squares don't solve either of those issues without the districts being much smaller anyway. Whereas significantly smaller districts, whilst improved by a randomly generated square layout, do so on their own. Moreover smaller districts means that door to door campaigning by the candidate themself becomes more effective.
It was a long time ago, but I remember seeing someone that used census blocks and a software algorithm to come up with the most mathematically compact districts possible. I think it may have just been for one state, but the districts were mostly roundish blobs. That clearly didn't respect existing political divisions like counties or cities, nor did it take geography much into account other than geography that was the basis for the border of the state. That isn't something that should be done, but it shows that much more neutral districts than most states now can be drawn.
In fact, how about this:
A state legislature forms a bipartisan commission to come up with a map that both sides can agree to. It must pass not just with a supermajority of the whole legislature, but it has to have the vote of a majority of both parties. If they can't agree to a map under those rules by some deadline, then a purely mathematical model will draw districts like I described above until they can pass something else.
I'd also buy the whining if she had commented on Democrat gerrymandered districts. Both sides do it, obviously.
But she did not.
I’d also buy the whining if she had commented on Democrat gerrymandered districts. Both sides do it, obviously.
I'd also buy that you care about gerrymandering in NC that benefited Republicans if you hadn't focused on her supposed hypocrisy for not being quoted* blaming both sides.
But you did.
*I suppose you are assuming that the few sentences she is quoted saying in this article about gerrymandering is everything she has said about it.
I do not care about gerrymandering. It is what it is. I never once claimed to give a shit. SHE is.
So fuck her, And Emma.
I do not care about gerrymandering. It is what it is. I never once claimed to give a shit.
Oh, I absolutely believe that you don't care about Republicans gerrymandering. I do not believe for a second that you don't care about Democrats doing it, especially if it would help them win control of your state's legislature or the House.
We both know she has never and will never say anything about the Dems doing it.
Agree. But that is precisely why gerrymandering continues and why legislatures almost never increase in size even with increase in population.
Gerrymandering benefits incumbents and status quo. That's why it will continue. The only way it can end is for it to be exposed as a positive harm to VOTERS. To pit voters - regardless of party - against incumbents and that status quo. And to leverage their actions so that those actions directly threaten incumbents who voted for gerrymandering in hopes they would benefit.
I admire this candidates guts in running in this election/district. And I like the strategy in messaging about 'we're losers' and humor. The idea I have is related to sortition - which can 'ungerrymander' even districts that are gerrymandered. More accurately - a combination of sortition and the old-fashioned 'chain letter'.
Randomly select X number of registered voters in that gerrymandered district. Start the chain letter with some message about whether you as a voter are happy in a gerrymandered district. If so, break the chain - if not, send the letter on to the next X or so randomly selected registered voters in the district.
IDK whether that sort of artificial viralness can work - but the process of sortition is what can absolutely 'break' many of the more extreme pack-and-crack versions of gerrymandering.
And nothing will break the habits of gerrymandering more than those backfiring on incumbents.
The only way it can end is for it to be exposed as a positive harm to VOTERS. To pit voters – regardless of party – against incumbents and that status quo.
This is the other reason why gerrymandering will continue. The majority of voters, however narrow or large, in a gerrymandered state, likes it that way because their side's legislators benefit from it and get a permanent majority and possibly a veto-proof majority.
The only way to break this is to show the voters in that majority that they do not benefit the way that they think they do. Especially when the incumbents motivate the voters based on hot-button cultural issues that don't really affect their own lives as much as other policies do, or they motivate them on other kinds of emotion-laden topics that they can spin in a way to make the other side look evil. (Politicians rarely get punished for playing into negative partisanship.)
What really affects voters the most are all of the other policies that are dull and depend so greatly on details. Safe-seat legislators don't really bother with what voters want on those issues, because they don't need to. Instead, they can cater to special interests freely.
IDK. While I agree that most partisans prefer a legislator from their district to be of their party, I think a significant number prefer someone from their party who is also capable of representing everyone in their district rather than simply the most extreme elements of their party. To give an example here in Colorado - Lauren Boebert.
Districts aren't gerrymandered here. It's one of the least gerrymandered states even though not all districts have competitive elections. Her 'current' district is comfortably R but a large portion of them really hate her now. She was able to primary an R incumbent in 2020 and then defeat the D for election. Before she made her name being a DC loudmouth with fake tits who appeals to extremists. By 2022, she was hated enough in her own district that a moderate D challenger was almost able to oust her. The closest House race in the US that year. So much of a threat to her incumbency that she switched districts for 2024 - from a seat that is 7% more 'R' than the average House seat to a seat that is 13% more 'R' than average. Now the trashiest critter will be the critter of a right-wing burb with money and a lot of farmers. I give her one election before they primary her.
And I do agree that if voters in the district can be shown that special interest money, cronyism, and other gerrymandered stuff doesn't benefit THEM personally - then gerrymandering can backfire.
The Barr has been set too high.
She is, Barr none, the least likely to win.
Unless she is Barred from running.
No doubt we'll find her in a Barr on November 5th, drowning her sorrows and/or having a great time dissing the incumbants.
Drowning her sorrows over a few beers at the barr.
I think she’s getting enough empty calories already from candy barrs.
studying for the barr exam requires snickers
Show me the map and election stats before crying to me about gerrymandering. In VA they extend as many districts as possible into the DC suburbs so democrats overrule the suburban and rural voters further out. It sounds to me like she’s upset that her hipster community bubble that escaped the city has invaded the space of rural and standard suburban voters.
Prove to me that this instance is a problem first before expecting me to feel sympathy that her district isn’t aligned with her.
And after comparing the 2020 election result maps looking at county results against the district maps, I think she lives in a small bubble. My best guess is that she's probably in the southern part of the district in an expensive community surrounding the lake. If so, she is welcome to be part of Charlotte's district.
It looks like there are 4 cities that provide most of the democrat support in the state. Otherwise it is a very red state. On a side note, I'd like to ask the YIMBY advocates here if they desire the communist outcomes that result from driving the population into urban centers.
To me, it’s a chicken-egg situation. I have little to no doubt that someone gerrymandered the district to weaken or cut out Democratic representation. How was the district drawn before that, and why? Did the new gerrymandering unflip an old gerrymandered district? Is it Gerrymandering all the way down? All the way up?
And if you say you lost the election because of Gerrymandering, is that election denialism? Does that make you an anti-vaxxer?
It's not gerrymandering, it's ranked-choice (re-)districting.
The problem is, every district map will influence the outcome. While everyone agrees gerrymandering is bad, it's much harder to define what exactly it is
Here's an example. If a state is 55% big-endians and 45% little-endians, what do you do? If you make every district 55/45, you almost guarantee the BEs will win a disproportionately large number of races. If you take registrations into account, you can engineer some districts with majority LE voters and that's going to guarantee there are a number of districts where BEs will be overwhelmingly dominant. You can make a number of 50/50 districts and that too will leave the leftover 10% of BEs to make some districts not at all competitive.
Throw into this the voting rights act (which requires gerrymandering based on race) and it's practically impossible to create districts which don't predetermine the outcome.
Final thought: people tend to self-gerrymander. I live in California, a state chock-a-block with Democrats. None of the state wide races are competitive. If we wanted to un-pack-and-crack voters, we'd need to redraw the state boundaries too.
And Maryland has some of the strangest districts in the country as well.
It doesn't matter. Civil Rights group of the DoJ has sued red states for geometrical districts because it didn't have enough minority majority districts.
Weird how Dems and Reason never mention this.
Florida’s first black rep post reconstruction came from a gerrymandered district that stretched from Jacksonville down into central Florida through the minority neighborhoods. The history of CD5 kinda made me just not care about gerrymandering anymore.
I live in district 6. One of the wonkiest of all. They slip just enough of the People’s Republic of Montgomery County into the mix to act a potential spoiler.
Just have ChatgGPT draw the districts, that'll take the human element out of it...
Maybe they should introduce a Top-three-past-the-post-round-robin-ranked-choiceinator system.
I propose something even more offensive above.
Aw... damn. Shoulda scrolled down.
For perspective on gerrymandering in NC check out the 1993 map:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_congressional_districts
In 1993 democrats controlled both houses and the governor's mansion.
https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_State_Senate
This bitch can fuck right off.
Right, this was my question above.
Scenario 1: There the Democrats were, minding their own business when... ALL OF A SUDDEN!
Scenario 2: There the Democrats were, enjoying the spoils of their long gerrymandered districts when... ALL OF A SUDDEN!
Scenario 1: Republicans pounced.
Scenario 2: Republicans seized.
I kinda want to know what neighborhood she lives in now. I scrolled through a few different maps and everything indicates that she lives in a heavily republican region of the state. It would probably be a worse case of gerrymandering to put her into an existing democrat aligned district or to shift hers that way. There are a few spots on the map that look like they have far worse gerrymandering potential.
Overall, we have a huge problem in politics of rural vs. urban populations. It's detrimental to freedom to let the urban populations direct policy.
Maybe she believes her home address should be in its own district.
Democrats did it first. That makes it ok.
IOW, you admit Democrats did it first rather actually look up the record to confirm or deny. You hate your own party so much you don't even wonder if they're really evil, you just assume it and shill for them anyway.
Just pointing out how people who claim to take great pride in their ethics are quick to throw them out the window if they can say Democrats did it first.
You just want democrats to get away with their bullshit, but republicans better not hit back, right?
Not that there’s any point asking, you’re too much of a pussy to respond to me.
Sarc is a retarded hypocrite.
It is that Democrats squeal like stuck pigs when rules that they have used for years get turned on them.
Would that be at all similar as to how Trumpians trumpet how the law is to be obeyed and never questioned when it comes to the treatment of immigrants, but squeal like stuck pigs when any law is applied to their cult leader or his acolytes?
You mean the laws they enacted just to get him?
Go fuck yourself drunky.
They invented laws against fraudulently substituting electoral votes and laws against storming federal buildings to disrupt the counting of electoral votes just to get him and his disciples?
“Storming federal buildings”
Pathetic Marxist drunk.
Yes.
Democrats have had slates of alternate electors.
And Democrats storm federal buildings to stop votes with such regularity that people barely notice.
They do it for laws, for appointments, for presidential inaugurations.
But when Republicans do it, suddenly there are laws against it.
Democrats did it first, that makes it ok. Understood.
When democrats are doing it, you’re there to deny it.
Your mom is a Democrat? Because I deny anything she says.
Ideas ™️! Not people.
Why is equal enforcement of the law such a difficult concept for you? The first time you refuse to enforce the law, it weakens the law. You don’t then get to enforce it punitively in the future. Think of it as a kind of nullification. That’s a libertarian concept so it might be hard for you.
Democrats _did_ do it first. Sort of. Elbridge Gerry was the "gerry" in "gerrymander" and a Democratic-Republican. The present-day Democratic party is directly descended from this party.
Idiot.
Democrats gerrymandered NC, Republicans UNgerrymandered NC--which means the seats Dems created for themselves revert to actual voting patterns (which are much redder)
And Democrats can whine about it because they tried to make doing what they'd done illegal in NC so no one could undo THEIR gerrymandering.
"And Democrats can whine about it because they tried to make doing what they’d done illegal in NC so no one could undo THEIR gerrymandering and replace it with their own."
FTFY
YW
You should try mixing pills with your booze.
Did they?
Or did they simply undo it?
Before the Dems gerrymandered, those places were reliably red. Competitive, but reliably red.
After, not at all competitive.
Now? Reliably red. Competitive, but reliably red.
In the redistricting after the 2010 census, Republicans were in control: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_North_Carolina_after_the_2010_census
In the redistricting after the 2020 census, it's been... chaotic... but at no point were Democrats in control: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_North_Carolina_after_the_2020_census
Yeah, it does.
"Democrats did it. Republicans should NEVER do it." is a fucking absurd take.
Problems do not get fixed if they only affect one group.
If I looked at the right map, the 2024 37th district is Iredell County plus a small slice off the northern portion of Mecklenberg County. It is hard to understand how this district is “gerrymandered”. It is compact, largely follows county political boundaries. It just happens to be largely Republican except for the portion from Mecklenberg.
The problem is that majority Democrat aresare concentrated into very geographically small but high population areas, making dividing them into sensible distrcts a problem.
My bet, it was either a Democratic or "good" Republican district and the exurbs expanded and they've now been tacked on to her district. Now, she's got her knickers in a twist because they want to go for the wrong kind of Republican.
So are you for or against gerrymandering?
I've read enough Democrat news, opinion and comments to know they believe gerrymandering is only done by Republicans to thwart democracy along with Slavery-based stuff in the anti-democratic constitution of not apportioning Senators by population (disenfranchising California and New York to the benefit of Wyoming) and the obsolete racist slave-holding abomination that is the hated Electoral College which disenfranchises everyone who does not live in a swing state.
Gerrymandering cannot be solved.
People chose division and thus create the only condition necessary for it's success: a populous that wants the specific party.
It is fascinating how gerrymandering only became a hot issue after the Democrats lost control of the majority of state legislatures, and therefore control of redistricting in those states.
The goose thinks what it did to the gander is unfair if the gander is able to return the favor.
As someone who lived in NC growing up. Gerrymandering is only brought up when democrats aren’t in control.
Not only is this the very first time Reason has ever covered gerrymandering, but they’re doing it in defense of Democrats too.
Chase Oliver. I had originally planned not to vote for anyone.
https://reason.com/2024/10/17/how-are-reason-staffers-voting-in-2024/
Sure Emma says she’s voting for Oliver, but this article proves she’s really voting for Harris.
If I lived in a swing state, I would cast an extremely unenthusiastic vote for Kamala Harris. While I have successfully resisted becoming coconut-pilled, I do sincerely hope Harris wins because Donald Trump is an aspiring authoritarian maniac.
Suuuure. Everyone knows you’re voting for Harris you leftist liar.
I was not talking about Reason. I was just talking about why the Democrats have their hair on fire about it now.
You got that out of a lone article about a lone wacko?
I dunno, look what you pull out of the most ordinary insult-free comments.
Still trying to win Jesse's favor, for what I don't know.
Ideas™️, not people.
Then you should commit suicide.
I have been following redsitricting issues for decades. This is the usual whinge from a Democrat.
Looking at the shape of the district, suggesting it is “gerrymandered” is comical. Especially for someone who used to live in Corinne Brown’s old Congressional district which went from Jacksonville to the southern parts of Orlando so they could get a majority-minority district.
The test of gerrymandering is not the shape of the district! The test is whether the final map leads to the most equal possible outcome statewide or the most unequal possible outcome. Ultimately, it comes down to intent. If the lines are drawn to maximize the number of majority districts for one party and minimize the number of majority districts for the other party, it's gerrymandering!
The purpose of districting is not to make the most equal distribution between the two major parties. Ostensibly, it is so the constituencies gets a representative that will present their communities's interests in the legislature.
LMAO! The purpose of redistricting is so the party in power, the one doing the redistricting, gets to abuse this power to create districts that will ensure they win the next election. The other party will grandstand and complain that they'd never do such a thing. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Sounds about right.
Republicans have pushed through an aggressive gerrymander of North Carolina’s congressional map that will help them flip several seats in Congress.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
Both parties are equal opportunity whiners when it comes to redistricting.
When have Republicans bitched about it, out of curiosity?
Every ten years in states where they aren't in control of the process in a state.
The only reason you're hearing about it now is because it went weirder then usual in NC and got dragged out through two congressional cycles rather then the normal one.
Can you provide an actual example? Something remotely close to specific? Something one can check independently.
California 2021/2022. Republicans contested the maps, lawyers got invovled, it went back and forth a few times, and if I recall correctly it wound up being on the 2022 ballot over which maps we'd wind up using.
Hell, downthread there's a guy bitching about New Mexico.
This is trivial, you're just partisan.
It would be impossible to gerrymander representative election districts if there were no representative election districts. All state and federal representatives should be elected "at-large" in a proportional representation ranked-choice iterative election system. Gerrymandering is one of the major foundations of the two-party system. Eliminating the two-party system is the ONLY peaceable way to re-establish Constitutionally limited government and control government power and abuse.
The map really doesn't look that bad. Compared to Illinois it looks quite reasonable.
Furthermore, I'm not sure what the complaint is. The state is divided between 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats, despite Republicans winning the state in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. The Democrats even hold a seat where the CPVI says it's a Republican district.
Nice deflection, but the complaint has nothing whatsoever to do with how the map looks to you. There is a very simple mathematical efficiency (or compactness) calculation that can be - and should be! - done to test for gerrymandering. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mathematics-behind-gerrymandering-20170404/
So a lot more Democrats should win districts even though the State votes Republican most of the time? They've got an even 7 to 7 split in a Republican voting state. What exactly do they want?
It is a 50-50 state. Stop being dishonest.
In 5 of the last 6 elections, the state has voted for the Republican--but their congressional representatives are 7D and 7R
This suggests that the Dems are finagling.
Or were.
Part of the problem with gerrymandering is the assumption that political electoral districts should honor existing boundaries, such as cities, counties, neighborhoods, rivers, freeways, etc. It provides all the cover needed for redistricting shenanigans.
TFA even mentions this:
That article is less than impressive. All it really does is propose ways to "test" redistricting plans for efficiency and repeatability. It says nothing of how to draw them in the first place, so it still comes down to politicians gaming the system and biased judges trying to ungame and regame the process.
What are the pros and cons of eliminating districts altogether and having all representatives be “at large”? Within the same state of course.
Well, there's a couple of different ways you can run multi-seat districts, but broadly problems include more complicated ballots (I think Americans are smart enough to understand complicated ballots, but not everyone has my confidence), that representatives would be less accessible and responsive to constituents (compare how hard it is to talk to your senator compared to your representative), that smaller communities --sharing a representative with every big city in the state-- would have their problems being represented exacerbated, etc. and so-on.
It would work out better for smaller states, work out worse for larger states.
Now to be clear, there's definitely nuance in how it was done. If it was treated as multi-member districts with proportional voting, then third parties would suddenly have a much easier time getting representatives in congress. But if it was done ham-fistedly, then it could also cement single-party control to an extent not seen in modern politics (yes, even worse then modern California).
My personal preference would be two-fold: do away with the cap on the size of the House and increase the number of representatives (probably three-fold), and then do multi-member districts aiming for size of 3-7 (preferred five) with proportional voting. I think that would achieve the objectives you're looking for, while avoiding most of the pitfalls I listed above.
Good thoughts.
The House is already too big. Triple the size makes it 1305 members - your representative won't be able to DO anything. And what would that end up being, a couple billion more a year in congressional and staff salaries?
I disagree, but if we're honest it's a pipedream, so I'm not sure it's worth the effort to explain why.
The House is already too big.
OMG you are kidding. The House has 435 elected critters - and 20,000 staffers who do the actual work of the legislature - gathering info, monitoring spending, constituent contact/representation, writing legislation, coordinating with other critters, etc. The critters themselves mostly spend their time fundraising and electioneering.
Those 20,000 staffers are a far better indicator of how many critters are actually needed since the last time the legislature expanded. Those staffers however are not accountable to the people. Which means they are corruptible and they become the swamp.
"What are the pros and cons of eliminating districts altogether and having all representatives be “at large”? Within the same state of course."
States like NY and IL already have tons of voters who do not much like large cities determining everything for the state. Eliminating ANY representation for them seems like bullshit to me, but YMMV.
That's why you really need to pair this kind of multi-member district (whether it's statewide or just by larger districts) with some flavor of proportional voting.
That we have a federal legislative body that does not have legislative districts. It is called the Senate. Whose interests are being represented in a state which has a dozen or more representatives being elected "at large".
Also, this story is about a state senate district, of which there are over 40 districts. How does "at large" districting help here?
And here I thought she might be challenging the codification of racism into our electoral system through the uncompetitive, gerrymandered required majority-minority districts but then I saw (D) and knew that this was just a dishonest ploy by Barr and screed by Emna.
Fvck all the way off Emma, you dumb twat child.
The Democrats had a safe black district that ran almost the length of the state.
Republicans have, if anything, Un-gerrymandered that previous monstrosity
"To have a chance of winning, Barr would need an astonishing statistical anomaly—a "99th percentile kind of blue wave," as she told Reason, to get elected."
I reject the premise. The premise implies that we are all party slaves voting straight tickets and that all races are decided by total # of party registrants and turnout. How about trying to represent your constituents as a whole instead of being a partisan?
It's worth noting that the reason re-districting was done was because North Carolina got an additional congressional seat after the 2020 Census, not because Republicans were looking to cheat.
Again, the state has 7 Republican reps, and 7 Democratic reps and in general the state tends to vote Republican for President. Gerrymandering may be a problem in general, but I'm failing to see the problem here.
It’s worth noting that the reason re-districting was done was because North Carolina got an additional congressional seat after the 2020 Census, not because Republicans were looking to cheat.
And, as keeps being danced about if not highlighted outright, it's not like gerrymandering is some sort of tractable problem to begin with. A map aligned *perfectly* with gun control isn't going to align *perfectly* with abortion or lockdowns or healthcare spending, so the idea that *any* border will align perfectly with an amalgamous political representation is folly.
Even "Put a dot in the geometric center of the state and fractionate the area by the number of representatives dividing a radial sweep of the area." is still going to have questions and issues like "Do we sweep to the tenth of a minute or the hundredth?" and "This area that represents geometric perfection of 1/13th of the state is actually hilly so it covers more area than the others and is a mostly blue district 'assigned' a red representative."
, it’s not like gerrymandering is some sort of tractable problem to begin with. A map aligned *perfectly* with gun control isn’t going to align *perfectly* with abortion or lockdowns or healthcare spending, so the idea that *any* border will align perfectly with an amalgamous political representation is folly.
Also, it's not like anyone ever left their political district and moved into another when they got fed up with the politics, and took their voting preferences with them. What happens in California and the Universities stays in California and the Universities, or so I'm told.
The fairest way to end "gerrymandering" would be to allow secession throughout the system. Let the smallest unit of community practicable decide they no longer want to be part of the larger polity and join other adjoining (only for reasons of practicality) polities. And let those polities reject them.
The fairest way to end “gerrymandering” would be to reduce the size of districts to something in the low five figures instead of the three quarters of a million that it is now, and allow number of representatives in the House to grow (or shrink) with the population. Yes, that would mean thousands of people in the House. It would also mean constituents would have direct access to their federal representatives.
While we're all high on this pipe dream I'd repeal the 17A at well.
Yes, we need moar government employees!
Multi-seat proportional vote districts. Have enough seats int he district (5 is the sweet spot, IIRC) and it's basically impossible to Gerrymander effectively.
Well bless her heart.
New Mexico has done the same thing; the Democrat majority has gerrymandered the Republicans out of representation; there is no doubt that we will have, as we have in recent years a 100% Democratic delegation to Washington, even though the state is about 30% Republican, 40% Democrat and the rest are unaffiliated or third party, many of which are conservative. The oil and gas industry here provides jobs for a large number of new Mexican, and not surprisingly, that area is bright red. We have the absolute worst governor in the country; she has vowed to rid our state of this industry, and if she is successful, the state tax revenues will be reduce by 40%. No problem, right?
I just peaked at the congressional map of NM and my only question is how Albuquerque is split. Otherwise, Las Cruces and Santa Fe being in their own districts with Albuquerque (or just most of Albuquerque?) being in it's own is about right, intuitively.
Did the line get drawn through ABQ in some weird way?
Albuquerque is very blue; they have taken advantage of that by diverting some of those votes to the southern district. They have also allocated some of the Southeast quarter red votes to the district farther to the north which is very heavily Democrat, thus moving votes around so that three Democrat representatives will be sent to Washington.
It is amazing how much politicians like your governor despise the infrastructure that makes modern civilization possible while espousing the luxury beliefs that can only exist in a modern civilization.
Good for Kate and good luck to her. I live in the deep blue Wisconsin 2nd Congressional district. But I have in my life be represented by a Republican, Scott Klug, 1991 to 1999. He won by getting out and working hard. One of the side effects of gerrymandering is that it often suppresses the vote for other races. Parties that cannot win don't run candidates, party members in the district have less incentive to vote and the party loses votes on statewide or national offices.
The last paragraph reminds me of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s response when he was asked the same question during his campaign for election as mayor of New York City: "Demand a recount!"
For a moment, I thought the author of this article was going to talk about Kamala Harris.
Harris has , however, brought in British troopers to strong arm people into voting for her. Which now makes her a traitor.
The last time the Brits were here to convince Americans to give up, they paid for it.
I see no reason why it shouldn't happen this time either.
Emma, you friggin' knuckle-dragging retard. How did you write this headline and mistake a white karen for a black indian caribbean whatever the heck she is on any given day.