25 Comments - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:51 am: You want a hypocrite handing reform, or a whiner? A whiner is someone who loses with the status quo, and a hypocrite is someone who wins with the status quo, but now wants reform. A conundrum for citizens throughout the ages. - jim - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:52 am: Gee, Rich, you’ve discovered hypocrisy in politics. He knew it was wrong and did it anyway. But at least he knew it was wrong. - Excessively Rabid - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:02 am: ==at least he knew it was wrong== There is that. A lot of them really don’t seem to know the difference any more, in this or any other area where judgement is required. - Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:02 am: === … opponents, including some top Democrats, argue it would “devastate the voices of minority communities.” === If they’re so concerned, they should take Rich’s suggestion to get ahead of the issue by running a remap proposal that addresses minority concerns. But then again, do we really believe the opposition is about minority representation as opposed to political advantage. - Sir Reel - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:03 am: Yes Obama benefitted from redistricting. Yes that’s hypocritical. So what. Redistricting is a good thing if it brings politics back to the center. I’m OK with politicians who change their mind if it’s for the better. Better that than politicians who don’t. - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:11 am: Some of this push surely has to do with the fact that - at least nationally - the Dems are getting their rear ends handed to them at the state level (including Governor’s mansions and statehouse control). State level GOP officials then draw favorable maps to benefit GOP candidates running for Congress. So the opposite of what is happening in Illinois is happening in red states. - ZC - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:12 am: I don’t know if it’s wrong or not, frankly. Can someone give me what “ought” to be the proper district-drawing norm? Someone elected or appointed is always going to have to draw the district lines, which means the voters are never going to literally “pick their politicians.” Obama got a rather “lakefront liberal” district that stretched from Hyde Park up through a lot of African-American communities to a bunch of richer white liberals (at least on social issues, they call themselves “moderates” more often on the economic ones). I think you could argue that Obama was an outstanding legislator to represent that kind of district and its diversity. If it also benefited him personally, that’s part of a long and proud political tradition. It’s not a moral crime to do well by yourself -and- your constituency. What is the standard? And if the answer is, “Square boxes, only!” then the question becomes: why is geometry now the fundamental basis for democracy? Can anyone explain the powerful underlying connection? And if the response to that is, “Square boxes can’t be politically manipulated or abused” … oh, but they can. - Niblets - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:19 am: I think Obama should have risen above the fray and refused to serve. Think of all the problems this would have solved for the Republicans. No need to spend eight years saying no before Obama even made any proposed. - Annonn'' - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:22 am: Who can show what will be anything that looks like an improvement as a result of this brainstorm? Right now it appears 1%ers have co-opted the reformers and all IL will get is more $upper$tare rental dropped into GA….not a very hot idea. - Facts are Stubborn Things - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:26 am: If the Republicans were in the majority and were about to draw up the districts the arguments on both sides would be the same, just the opposite. We need a budget! - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:42 am: Per Niblets - I’m not sure it’s hypocrisy to play the hand you’re dealt but want the rules to change. George W Bush smeared John McCain with this by claiming if McCain wanted reform so much he should be turning down money (and thus effectively crippling his campaign). Regardless, if a hypocrite says the sun rises in the east, it still rises in the east. Gerrymandering is a crime against democracy, and those who pooh-pooh reform efforts just make their arguments for the party who benefits from gerrymandering less credible. - hakuna matata - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:46 am: Team Sleep - exactly why I think it should be federal. - Austin Blvd - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:01 am: Having the Gold Coast was divine intervention. Ok, back to normal. - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:11 am: HM - that would be ideal, but what if you have a situation like the one we had in 2007 or 2015? President Bush and President Obama were both at the end of their respective terms but had complete opposition in the Senate and House. Granted, the opposition is not on every issue but the big issues have caused problems. This would be a big issue and would likely go down in flames if President Obama attempted to push it through. Just an observation. - veritas - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:16 am: ZC - is your contention really “there is no perfect way to redistrict, so we should stick with the contrived mess we have”? C’mon - think it through. - walker - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:19 am: It’s not a false equivalency to say that if the Republicans were in charge, the Democrats would have the same objections to partisan remapping. That current state Republicans are pushing for a remapping reform, reflects their assumption that they will be the minority legislative party in the foreseeable future. Any change is viewed as a likely gain for them, and a loss for Dems. The question is: Can we have a system that is “less partisan” and therefore objectionable to both political parties? Yes, we can get to a more “neutral” map, that maintains the real requirements for protecting the representation rights of racial minority groups. The GOP gains might be a few seats changing, rather than a majority in the legislature. The remapping reform could result in adjustments in the psychology of leadership (really “followship”) and public trust in elections. The best way, to get to the best possible “less partisan” outcome? Probably using the current petition framework, with adjustments by the legislature to protect communities. The public petition effort will succeed, but probably be subject to legitimate court challenges, so the legislature should get ahead of it. - Harry - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:21 am: Arguments about procedure are always really about substance. People’s positions on process change with their interest, but positions on substance are consistent. Jiggering the map was fine in 2001 when it helped Obama. Now that it doesn’t matter to him, and in most States have Republican governors and legislatures currently would control a remap, he can get all self-righteous. Which doesn’t make him any worse than any and every other pol. But we don’t have to take any of it seriously. - Austin Blvd - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:41 am: It’s important to recognize, as Obama stated and as Rich noted, that this is a national issue. So Illinois becomes an island that gerrymanders through a higher-echelon order of operation. How does that ensure minority representation in DC or IL? It’s a hustle. - Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:42 am: I continue to advocate for 3 person districts with cumulative voting. If districts are compact and contiguous, that helps. This approach virtually assures that sizable minorities will win seats. It moves the swing seat in each district towards the middle. It spreads the parties into areas where they are a minority. And it encourages non-standard candidates to run. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:50 am: The “minority representation” defense of gerrymandering is largely a myth. First, other states have rid themselves of gerrymandering without this issue (see California for example). Second, the Supreme Court’s ruling that districts must be roughly equivalent in population. But the best argument is that guaranteeing a minority representative can inadvertently diminish minority power. Look at the Illinois Congressional 4th District, drawn to stitch together two largely Hispanic areas to guarantee a Hispanic representative. If these districts were split, Hispanics might not be elected, but they’d be immensely powerful in each. You can gerrymander based on race, but it’s very hard to “un-gerrymander” and have a pronounced racist effect. - Austin Blvd - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:17 pm: Lake County - Were it not for the “myth” of minority representation, as you put it, there would probably be no Democratic districts in central Illinois. In order to get these Democrat districts, there had to be created Super Republican Districts where incumbents serve for 10 years with zero chance of a challenge. That’s the trade off for creating the Democrat districts with minority representation. Can you program a computer to do that? - The courts - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:36 pm: There are some serious gerrymandering, examples when you look at some of the northern districts. The shape and design of some districts just doesn’t make sense otherwise. - ZC - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:55 pm: >> ZC - is your contention really “there is no perfect way to redistrict, so we should stick with the contrived mess we have”? C’mon - think it through. I’m not intrinsically opposed to redistricting reform, but I tend to think its supporters overlook the biggest problem today. In 2012, Barack Obama won the presidency and Democrats maintained control of the US Senate. What’s sometimes forgotten, is that more American voters -also- voted for a Democratic House than a Republican one, nationwide. Estimates are like 51% (rounding up) of Americans voted for a Democrat to represent them in the US House of Representatives. But Republicans won about 54% of the seats. So there was some gerrymandering going on in Republican-controlled states at the time (you could argue IL is only helping balance the scales, but set that aside): The deeper problem is that Democrats tend to cluster today in big cities. Republicans often seem to think this is some kind of moral failure of Democrats, that Republicans in the suburbs and in rural areas should automatically be counted more for the purposes of representation because of this, but I don’t see it myself. The problem then becomes if you draw a lot of tight urban Democratic districts, you create some “hyper-blue” districts on Illinois’ NE coast. In effect you “pack” Democrats, and make it more possible for Republicans to control Springfield despite hypothetically (as, again, happened in 2012 nationwide) winning fewer votes statewide. And it’s hard for me to see how you get out of that dilemma, unless you to move to at-large districting, or maybe we should go back to the multimember districts. I am open to alternatives. But I’m leery about all too-quick-cries to “reform” the current system when they’re spearheaded by plans that seemingly amount to, “let’s pack as many Democrats as we can into as few districts as possible.” I mean, I know Bruce Rauner would never have a partisan and self-serving motivation behind any of his reform proposals, but we should apply due diligence nevertheless. - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:10 pm: There is no such thing as a private company drawing up a fair map. The private company doing the mapping have in the past and will continue to be purchased by those who want hidden control over political mapping. - Langhorne - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:33 pm: This stinks. It would be fine if dceo was announcing new jobs coming to the area. This is a crass situation where dunkin is trying to show, as cmte chair, he can convince dceo to cut the papers in on the bennies. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.