Kowani wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:I'd like to be able to read the full article and see additional research before definitively saying independent commissions don't reduce gerrymandering. After all, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that what an independent commission creates in a non gerymandered state protects elected officials about as much as the normal political process. The commission is unlikely to dramatically change district boundaries, which the elected officials will have won on the last election.
What an independent commission does do is avoid the worst of gerymandering.
Sure, it's not really any better for the thesis
An interesting read. Certainly indicates that independent commissions don't make districts that are more competitive, on average, than politically drawn maps.
However I don't think that is the correct question for gerymandering. The better question would be: do independent commissions lead to representation that better reflects how the population votes?
To illustrate this lets assume a state that is split 50/50 and we have to draw 10 districts in. We could create a map where 5 seats are safe for party A and 5 seats are safe for the party B (option 1), we could create a map where party A dominates 2 seats but then is split up so that the other 8 seats always go to party B (option 2), or we can create a map where both party A and party B are equally represented in each district (option 3).
Under the question of competitiveness option 2 is better than option 1, even though option 2 unfairly boosts part B's power. Option 3 is the most competitive, but means that small swings in the election can lead to one party dominating.
For best results the US should go away from single member, winner takes all, strait most votes wins elections.