Gerrymandering: Is Geometry Silencing Your Vote?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2017
- Host Myles Bess breaks down gerrymandering, and how politicians on both sides of the aisle use sophisticated software to rig the voting system in their party's favor. What does this mean for YOUR vote?
SUBSCRIBE to Above the Noise: [czcams.com/users/abovethenoise...]
ABOVE THE NOISE is a show that cuts through the hype and takes a deeper look at the research behind controversial and trending topics in the news. Hosted by Myles Bess and Shirin Ghaffary.
NEW VIDEOS EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY
Fair elections are at the heart of American democracy, but many people argue that politicians have been undermining this American ideal through the practice of what is called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering has been described as the process of politicians picking their voters instead of the voters picking their politicians. In order to really understand this concept, you need to know how voting districts work.
Essentially states are split into different voting districts. For example, there are congressional voting districts-- where voters from each district elect a person to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. These voting districts are based on population size, and every 10 years after the US census, voting districts are redrawn to make sure that each district has the same number of people. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be fair if one district has twice as many people as all the other districts, but still only gets one representative in the House. There are lots of different ways a state can be divided up into districts, so how do you decide where to draw the district lines?
In the case of gerrymandering, politicians from the party that’s in power use census and voting data to make predictions about how people are likely to vote, and they draw districts in a way that ensures their political party will win the most voting districts overall. This allows political parties to win more districts even if they have fewer overall votes. For example, gerrymandering is probably the reason why in the 2016 election in North Carolina, democrats won 47% of the vote, but only ended up with 23% of the seats. Both republicans and democrats do it, and who draws the lines depends on which party is in power.
For the most part, gerrymandering for political purposes is allowed, but racial gerrymandering is illegal. According to the Voting Rights Act, you can’t draw districts in a way that disadvantages minority racial groups. But many people, from both political parties feel that gerrymandering undermines the democratic process and they want to find ways to stop it. Some favor allowing computers to take over the redistricting-- by programing algorithms to prioritize size and neat and tidy district shapes. Some states, like California have independent bipartisan commissions in charge of redistricting. Since these commissions are bipartisan, they don’t have an incentive to gerrymander.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION HERE!
ww2.kqed.org/learning/2017/05...
SOURCES:
redistricting.lls.edu/where.php
theconversation.com/can-math-s...
www.dailydot.com/layer8/redis...
Follow KQED:
KQED: www.kqed.org/
Facebook: / kqed
Twitter: KQED?lang=en
Teachers follow KQED Learning
KQED Learning: ww2.kqed.org/learning/
Facebook: / kqedlearning
Twitter: KQEDedspace?lang=en
About KQED
KQED, an NPR and PBS affiliate in San Francisco, CA, serves Northern California and beyond with a public-supported alternative to commercial TV, Radio and web media.
Funding for Above the Noise is provided in part by S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, David Bulfer and Kelly Pope, Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation, The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, The Koret Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Smart Family Foundation, The Vadasz Family Foundation and the members of KQED.
POV: Your teacher wanted you to watch this for an assignment.
I’m not complaining though. Nice video.
That's a win! Glad you liked it!
Got recommended to you by PBS Spacetime; I'm glad to see more people take on Gerrymandering in particular, and I like your approach (this video seems a little short on your usual data, but I expect it's because gerrymandering is a more mathematical than empirical thing). For anyone interested in getting a bit more detail and examples, I highly recommend CGP Grey's video on gerrymandering if you haven't already seen it, as well has his series on election systems.
As for how gerrymandering makes me feel: disillusioned. I still vote because it's low enough opportunity cost, but I vote strategically instead of honestly, which is a big problem when I'm trying to abide by the idea that honesty is the foundation of all human virtue. The structural problems in US elections, and gerrymandering is the most immediate, makes me look at other democracies with envy. It's a very strange position to be in when we're raised to believe we're the best country in the world even when so many metrics don't support it.
I totally agree. The fact that our elected politicians get to rewrite the districts is mindboggling. It actively promotes an extremely partisan country where compromise is impossible. There needs to be an independent commission doing this. Also, as you said CGP Grey's video on this is quite good as well.
Thanks for watching, and for your thoughtful response Okuno Zankoku and viewman86! We're thrilled that SpaceTime recommended us-- we're big fans! As for the data part-- you are absolutely correct. Because there are so many great explainers on this topic, like you mention, we decided to try to provide a little more context and go lighter on the data a bit. As for gerrymandering and voting it'll be interesting to see how states decide to redistrict after the next census. Seems like there's been mounting pressure from the public to reform the process.
The next census might be a disaster since Director Thompson quit and the bureau is being funded at 2010
budget levels. But all that may be irrelevant since how most politicians vote is determined by their large donors, not their constituents wishes.
The number of House seats has been static since 1929 while the population has nearly tripled in the same time. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to update the Apportionment Act so that there is less of an incentive to crack and pack voting blocks based on geography.
Recommended over by PBS Space Time, I quite liked this video! Americans really need to see gerrymandering for what it is - a blatant attempt by politicians to make your vote count for less. I hope this video spreads!
FYI, Canada isn't fully immune to this either. Between 2004-2015 we had a pretty obvious "cracked" scenario in Saskatchewan's federal electoral districts that kept a consistently strong second-place party from winning *any* seats at all, as it split up the two major urban centres into four districts, despite only required two to cover each city respectively, and combined them with expansive rural sections. The ironic part was that this change was encouraged by the party that it affected the most, because they believed the urban sections would keep out the rural vote. :) But, that case aside, Canada has nothing like what I've seen in the US, it's crazy there.
Thanks for checking us out and sharing that Canada story. While researching for the video we ended up reading a lot of interesting stuff about the Canadian system.
I really like how you include links to sources and a useful description for your videos. Keep up the good work! :-D
Thanks for noticing! We try hard to be transparent about our sources and giving viewers as much information to do further investigation on the topic if they so desire!
I really like this channel and I hope it gets more attention. As a PHY major I've had a long term problem of bringing up science to someone and them replying "well scientists say [tying your shoelaces different] will cure cancer so can we really trust them?". It's always like pulling teeth because the people (and by extension the media) interpret science misunderstanding studies, the scientific method, or how to interpret data. It's an awesome thing that I've only rarely seen come to light, probably the last time getting popular mention was on Jon Oliver's show about a year ago, so stick with it guys I appreciate all the stuff you do.
Thanks Oprah Wind Fury!! Promoting science and media literacy is big passion of ours. Thanks for all the encouragement!
Awesome feedback! Thanks for watching. We hope you keep coming back to see our new episodes -- lots of interesting topics in the pipeline.
Thanks so much for watching! We are glad you appreciate our work so far -- keep coming back to see new episodes!
I just discovered your channel. This video got my subscription!
That's great to hear! So glad you liked the channel enough to subscribe. We are new to the game and hope to grow the community on here quickly.
The electoral college also can influence whose votes count.
Lmao I got an ad for your Channel as I was watching your Channel
Haha! Well, that's overkill, but we're glad you ended up here and hope you liked the channel enough to subscribe!
Great Job. This is just what we need. Straight forward info about important issues in a nutshell that wakes us up, begins an awareness, makes us think, and encourages us to seek out more information so we can make better decisions.
Thanks! You just summed up our mission statement. Glad that is coming through so far!
You asked what I'd like to see. :) I would love to see some episodes on conflict of interest - the revolving door problem where people go back and forth between regulatory agencies and the companies those agencies regulate.
Also episodes on the Citizen's United ruling and how corporations are obligated by law to make money for their shareholders. Too often corporations use that logic (that legal excuse) to do whatever it takes to make more money for their shareholders - which is sometimes bad for everyone else in the long run. That's not to say that making money is bad. But making money at the expense of others or the environment (harming others or the environment) is dangerous.
Thanks for all your work!
@@AboveTheNoise Can you explain how Gerrymandering makes one's vote obsolete?
Nice channel, I came from PBS Space Time.
I like your videos, keep it up nad you will grow :)
Here is how I would redistrict areas:
Step 1: Have a computer algorithm draw a map using the Shortest Split-line Algorithm
Step 2: Have an independent, state-run, commission review this map and make any reasonable modifications due to historical, geographic, demographic, or any other reasonable concerns
Step 3: Check the modified map against an algorithm method similar to Professor Wendy Tam Cho's Computational Method for Identifying Extreme Redistricting Plans, to identify any partisan bias
Step 4: Have another independent, state-run, commission (provided with the information from Step 3, as well as information relating to any other comments, complaints, concerns, or issues) approve or veto the map and (if vetoed) send it back to either step 1 (if sent back to step 1, it may be prudent to establish a new independent commission) or step 2 of the process.
This whole process should take less than 3-6 months. If a solution cannot be settled by the deadline, another map that would be near identical to the Shortest Split-line map will be automatically selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also many other improvements that need to be made to the United States electoral systems, such as:
* Popular Election of the U.S. President
* A Switch from First Past the Post to Ranked Choice Voting or Proportional Systems (most likely with multi-member districts)
* Improving Enfranchisement, through automatic voter registration, or easy voter registration (probably through the mail or online), easy voting (like early voting, voting my mail - which might be the most efficient, etc...), restoring voting rights to incarcerated convicts and former convicts, etc...
* Enacting measures to improve voter information, such as improving the state of Presidential Debates and Forums, certain advertising rules, and just having more public policy education in general.
* Removing money's influence from elections, possibly through policies laid out in the American Anti-Corruption Act.
* The following are more extreme and are not necessary, but I have heard compelling arguments that we should make voting mandatory with a $20.00 - $50.00 fine for not voting, and lowering the voting age to 16.
* Etc...
A lot of these may require a Constitutional Amendment though. There are some ways around the Constitution however, such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. All these are just to improve the election process in the U.S. though. There are many other ways to improve the performance of government and elected officials.
Would be great if you did an episode on fair(er) election systems and methods, such as IRV and others. Would be great if some of the theory is considered (such as Arrow's impossibility theorem, and other theory), but even just talking about this important improvement to US voting (and other countries, too, of course) would be much appreciated.
The best solution seems to me to simply get done with districts entirely. Anyone on the state can vote on anyone they want from the entire state. How to distribute the votes is more complicated... If one guy gets 90% of the votes of the state should him get just one seat? The typical solution for that is to give seats to the party first. The vote counts primarily to the party: if one guy got 90% of the votes, at least 90% of the seats goes to his party. Inside the party, the candidates gets the seats on the order they were most voted.
That is how it works in Brazil, which indicates it doesn't work very well (although I am positively sure it is better than district division). My proposed solution is for representatives not to get elected at all, but simply randomly chosen among the population. If the person doesn't want, draw the next. It is entirely possible to elaborate a process which mathematically guaranteed to be fair. Such a system also guarantees a house which is completely representative of the people. All the parties would be able to do was to supervise the process, and instruct the chosen people for the next term (i believe there should be a one year training period before assuming the office).
What are the chances of this scheme to be implemented in practice anywhere in the world? I suspect statistically 0.
Thanks for watching! Let us know what you think in the comments below. If you have questions, we'll try to answer them.
you explain concepts so well, thank you!
Thank you!
Most other western democracies? More like anglistic democracies. In mainland europe the most widespread system is voting for parties which according to their percentage in the popular vote place representatives into the parliament. Loses the advantage of direct election of representatives but garantuees representation according to popular vote.
Thanks for raising that point -- we are now inspired to learn more about the mechanics of different electoral systems and who knows -- could make for a good future episode.
To add, US/UK system promotes pork barrels and two party systems (or at least regional parties). To illustrate, in 2015 UK parliament elections, UKIP got 12.7% of votes, but only 1 seat. Scottish National Party got 4.7% of votes and 56 seats (of 650).
I love it
Really well explained, Thank you so much
The easiest way to fix it is to allocate seats in parliaments according to the principle of proportional representation.
I'm curious to know, are there changes to the way elections are run that can help? I've heard it said that STV makes gerrymandering less effective, but are there better options?
Also, new sub from Infinite Series
It might take a little more work, but I think multi-member district proportional representation is superior to any system we can devise using single-member districts.
I drew up a map for Texas using this method:
dojiggystandard.com/pr.html
My math of social choice theory class loved this :D
Sarah Hansen that’s so cool! Have you checked out our website for students, KQED Learn? Students can discuss their views on the topics in our videos with other students from around the country, and make their own media investigations. learn.kqed.org/
Thank you for explaining gerrymandering I understand this stuff cracking and packing
In the part of the video where you mention California using "bipartisan commissions", that is still rigging the districts by putting the power to draw them into the hands of the two main parties and therefore shutting out any third parties from a chance at winning.
That's a good point. Thanks for watching and joining the conversation.
Good job ! I really like your videos. I'm happy to see coloured faces on a pbs channel for once 😁. And I don't understand why American don't do the direct universal suffrage like us french people there is no gerrymandering this way and all votes would have the same weight !
This is one of the reasons why I don't vote.
States send two state representatives each (senators). Since this is a statewide position, it would be done without concern for a district.
The number of house representatives determined by population. Districts could be fixed and of roughly equal continuous area and population and redrawn whenever the number of representatives change. The drawing of the districts would be done by a independent committee based on drawing rules.
An alternate thought is to assign each person a state citizenship and through that a representative, eliminating the need for a district to define what part of the population a house representative represents.
Got here from PBS Space-time umm.... seems pretty good I'm gonna Stay, subbed :D
Chaitanya Singh so glad you like we've done so far! Keep checking in every other Wednesday to see new episodes.
AYE AYE CAP... NOTED!!! :D
Hi! First of all - very interesting and content related series. I am great fan of that kind of activities on CZcams. It is surprising to me that you n US have to cope whit such a problem. I thought you, as old democracy, have developed some civic methods to automatically reduce that kind of political abuse. Sorry to hear, that its not completely true. How often does it take place? Once a 10 year, or often? Who is doing/approving it? Congress, government? Have opposition any chance to protest or stop it? Greetings form Poland.
Being a GIS Technician and geography wiz, I can testify to how easily gerrymandering could be. Political and census data is very easy to draw and manipulate to your advantage.
Being a Texan, this is frustrating because so many districts are clearly gerrymandered.
Jordan Martirossian thanks for sharing your perspective!
let's just have proportional representation
Here we are! Some news we can ALL agree on!
I think independent commissions are the best ideas
An interesting sidenote to this is the power for both good and evil that mapping software has brought to the redistricting process. Using spatial data and GIS tools, it is much easier to amplify bias and reduce it. With great power comes great responsibility. Google "maptitude" if interested.
We did come across a ton of interesting research on mapping tools that are influencing the gerrymandering process -- could probably make for another video on that alone! Thanks for the comment and helping push the investigation further.
This channel deserves more prescribers
Thanks for coming over this way. We hope we can reach more and more people -- the channel gets better the more we hear back from people with their ideas and questions. We're all about inquiry, investigation -- and learning from our community of learners here!
This is why you should never register party preference
I really wish we had shortest splitline redistricting
Gerrymandering will make the votes of some voters in any given district little more than protest votes. I am one of those protest voters, and I vote anyways since it's not that much effort and it shows my representatives that I am politically engaged.
Something known as the efficiency gap can be used to measure such votes. I'm surprised you guys didn't mention this metric since prioritizing districts which reduce it is potentially another viable way to end gerrymandering. You also didn't mention a more contentious idea: switching to a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems are also susceptible to gerrymandering, but far less so.
Understandably, there's a lot of debate around what's the most effective way to stop gerrymandering. At the end of the day though, any of the proposed solutions would be more democratic than the current system.
I think they should also cover voter suppression. It's another relatively uncontroversial (in my opinion, at least) way in which American elections are far from fair. With as much as they have talked about click bait/fake news they have a great chance to contrast illegitimate claims of voter fraud with the reality of voter suppression.
PS LOVE your name and profile picture.
subscribed! from pbs spacetime!
Thanks for checking out our newest channel!
Yay! We love spacetime over here. Thanks for subscribing. Let us know if there are any topics you'd like us to cover. We have some wacky ones planned for this summer so stay tuned...
Hmmm... Unless I’m missing something really basic here, the problem isn’t jerrymandering, but that voter *districts*, rather than individual voters, elect candidates. Voter districts need to become strictly clerical - to “divide and conquer” the problem of reporting the popular vote. If which candidate wins a given voter district we’re made irrelevant, then the shapes and makeup of each voter district would make no difference whatsoever.
@Victoria O'Donnell, or President or Governor. But yes, for Representatives in the House (State or US), that needs to be by district.
Thanks for the video!
I would identify as Republican but in my state the Republicans in power tried gerrymandering but I'm glad the Republican Supreme Court in my state said no!
I'm against gerrymandering and I like this video
Well, you didn't raise the most important point. Gerrymandering is inherently coupled with first-past-the-post voting, so the best solution is to just get rid of single representant districts and move to better voting system - like eg. STV.
We could keep the districts as they are now but allot the politicians elected based on the popular vote in that state. Ex: If 55% of the popular vote went to Democrats and 45% to Republicans in a given state, those running in districts that lost by smaller margins would still get elected. This would also allow for 3rd parties to get elected more easily.
- Power is in the hands of a few politicians, which by definition is oligarchy.
- Politicians are financed by a few billionaires, and various studies prove that politicians serve the interests of those who finance them rather than those who vote for them.
- Gerrymandering.
Yet, they have the audacity to call this system "democracy".
That damn Gerrymander. I always knew he was a trouble maker. Ever since I saw him licking melted ice cream off a police car 👅🚔🍦👀; I knew he wasn't right. Damn! Damn! Damn...!!! (In my Florida Evans voice.) 🙃🤣😂😂😂🙈🙉🙊🐒🐤🐣?
Heh heh in Ireland gerrymandering was legal until the 1977 gerrymander backfired and the new government set up an independent body to draw up the constituencies rather than have the government do it to their own advantage.
I like that you guys mentioned possibly using computer algorithms for redistricting, but I think something that is very often overlooked is that you can't totally remove human bias from the process. Algorithms are programmed by humans, and our biases will be baked into the algorithms (hopefully subconsciously and not willingly!) whether we want them to be or not.
Thanks for the comment David! Good point. If you are interested in algorithms you might like our video on algorithms in the criminal justice system: czcams.com/video/Gi4YeRqfb24/video.html Would be curious about your thoughts on that one.
Time and time again it has proven to be the case that is intentional
Goddamn geometry. Speaking of voting, y'all should look at alternative voting systems. CGP Grey did some good videos on them.
Is it constitutionally mandated that districts have to have the same number of people?
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about districting, only covering the number of Representatives each state can have (Article 1, Section 2; amended by the 14th and legislated by the Reapportionment Act of 1929). However, there is a federal law that requires single-seat districts: 2 US Code section 2c, so there is one district for every Representative. As for your particular question, the SCOTUS ruled in Baker v. Carr that the principle of equal representation (“one person, one vote”) which derives from the 14th Amendment implies that districts within a state should have roughly equal populations.
Another thing that would reduce the effect of Gerrymandering would be to see voters vote less based on political identity.
What about simple majority? Most votes in the state win. Why count by district?
STV solves all your problems! (In Gerrymandering)
CGP Grey Video:
czcams.com/video/l8XOZJkozfI/video.html
Thanks for sharing and adding to the conversation. GCP Grey's videos are pretty cool!!
Can you explain how Gerrymandering makes one's vote obsolete?
A gazillion? You mean infinity?
Do one on vaccines please!
Alexandru Gheorghe we've definitely been thinking about that one. Third rail issue for sure. Thanks for watching us!
Since African Americans tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, creating districts wherein you achieve sufficient representation for African Americans sort of guarantees a level of packing doesn't it? In order to avoid ‘racial discrimination’, aren’t we guaranteeing republican over representation in states with large black populations?
we should use computers
Gerrymandering looks like a fun strategic board game. Gerrymandering looks like a terrible way to run elections. Maybe someone should make a gerrymandering board or video game, and spread it around to raise awareness of this with the public.
I think you're on to something! Here's one redistricting computer game we found: www.redistrictinggame.org/ There's also open sourced collaborative redistricting software if you want to really get in the weeds: www.districtbuilder.org/
Change the voting system.
I'll cast it in another place that will be ideal for me
or you just get a voting system like in Sweden where Every vote counts since half of the votes don't get thrown away when a party winns in a district
I think we should gerrymander, but with a certain result in mind. We shouldn't gerrymander for parties. We should gerrymander for competitiveness. This should bring about compromise and civility as we empower the middle to rise up. There may be other things to gerrymander for such as racial and income diversity for similar reasons.
Interesting perspective. Selective gerrymandering. But who do you suggest should be in charge of making those decisions?
Some one paid good money to make the current mess happen. Politicians just tell these people to gerrymander to the benefit of a party and satisfy what SCOTUS has said based on the voting rights act. We just need to tell these people to change their gerrymander optimization criteria for something better and with the long & fair view in mind.
do republicans do it more, or dems?
I think it naive to just say that racial gerrymandering is illegal as if that means it never happens anymore. It is still common in many places and in the current political climate and with the recent Supreme Court ruling people feel empowered to do it. There is still a LOT of work to be done to fight racial bias in America (and in ourselves). It's pretty deeply entrenched.
Patrick Horgan Thanks for your comment. Good point, just because something is technically illegal doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled a little while ago that a couple of districts in North Carolina were illegally gerrymandered because of race: www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/334529-supreme-court-strikes-down-nc-districts-as-illegally-based-on-race%3famp
Patrick Horgan yes, we agree. We did want to point out that the problem of racial gerrymandering has been recognized by federal law, but you make an important point that implementation is another story.
Take the human out of the process? and just use a "neat" program algorithm. Wait!, didn't a human code the program? Well now, you ended up putting the human back. not probable to remove a human from the process.
In the past few elections, I almost decided not to vote. I just don't feel like it counts, and this video supports that thought. The people voted for Clinton by almost 3 million votes, but Donald got elected. Am I wasting my time? Gerrymandering needs to go away, as does the Electoral College.
To preface this comment, I want to start by saying that I agree 100% that gerrymandering really screws up elections. Along with this problem sits the electoral college, aka the reason Trump is president instead of Hillary Clinton who clearly won the popular vote. BUT, these problems are turning our elections into essentially a positive feedback loop that continuously makes our elections less and less truly democratic. On top of gerrymandering and the electoral college, which by themselves make all votes not count as equal, these problems are amplified by discouraged voters (especially young voters and minority voters) and the cycle continues. Young people are the future of this country, but they are a very small percentage of the voice. We have grown up in an era where voting is a privilege to all citizens regardless of race or gender; I think we are taking that right for granted when we shouldn't be.
So even though it is important to understand the implications of these problems, I feel it is still VITALLY important to encourage people to vote. I am a college student in Alabama and I just this week watched how the African American community as well as young people helped Doug Jones win a seat in the Senate. Nobody thought that enough people from the Bible belt in Alabama would come together and stand against Roy Moore's disgusting self, BUT WE DID IT!!
For a long time felt like my vote did not matter so I thought "when I turn 18 I probably won't vote anyway." However after going to the University of Alabama at Birmingham (Go Blazers) and having the chance to broaden my world view and become more cultured and empathetic, I realized that opting out of voting is for myself, in a huge sense, a poor use of white privilege. For a lot of people, minorities in particular, elected officials can change their lives dramatically. As we have seen in the past year, travel bans, immigration policies, and even just verbal empowerment of bigotry are affecting SO many people negatively. So when elections come around I not only feel that it is my responsibility to vote for what I believe in; I feel that it is my responsibility to go vote for all of the people who will be directly effected if I don't. So please try to encourage millennials to vote even if gerrymandering and the electoral college are in place, because if our generation doesn't start making our voices heard, we are going to be the ones stuck with the repercussions for years and years to come.
On a lighter note, I love this channel and I have binge watched it for the past day and a half after finishing finals. I really love the lighthearted yet firm attitude that you all take while addressing some serious social issues. PBS studios has me hooked on another one of their channels!!
Wow, thank you for sharing such inspiring and heartfelt words! The whole country was watching the election in Alabama this week, and it looks like turnout for African American and young voters played a huge role in getting Doug Jones elected. In case you haven't seen these yet, these two articles highlight the voter breakdown: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/13/doug-jones-alabama-roy-moore-african-american-voters and civicyouth.org/23-of-youth-vote-in-alabama-propel-doug-jones-to-victory/ And be sure to check out this one about how Alabama is gerrymandered: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/13/how-doug-jones-lost-in-nearly-every-congressional-district-but-still-won-the-state/?.2e2b24b3594b Your passionate response has struck a chord with us at Above the Noise and we’d love to talk to you more. Would you mind emailing your contact info to us at education@kqed.org? Thanks again for your response!
Thank you so much for the response and for the links! I read them all; they are both very encouraging and disheartening at the same time. I will definitely email you my contact information and I look forward to talking with you more!
Either 1. Get rid of districts and vote at large like continental Europe. Yes, a constitutional change. You cannot decouple racial and political gerrymandering because Republicans are so white. 2. Use sortition (chose representatives by lot).
Me leaving a dislike on the video me teacher told me to watch
WHY in this Video is a Young Black man talking about. Democrats Gerrymandering ? Republican Gerrymandering has been heaviest in the past 10 years. An all out systematic effort to advantage Republicans Look up the meaning of RED MAP
This video is a load of malarky