Should Democrats run on the issue of redistricting in 2018 and 2020?

[badgate]

The idea could have merit. It's an argument that would need to be repeated over and over and over before voters get it, but it can be boiled down: the last redistricting was political, so too many seats were drawn to keep incumbents safe. The plethora of safe districts is the cause of gridlock. Elect us for redistricting reform.

What do y'all think?

[Keystone Phil]

This is the stuff you emphasize with your base to get them more engaged. Your average voter isn't going to be motivated by "You'll be thrown into a super safe district for the other party if you don't vote for us in x, y and z." Not to say that they'll like gerrymandering but your average folks just aren't going to make it a top priority.

[Vega]

I think so, yes, but people will more than likely just glaze over about the issue.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The democrats won't run on it because they gerrymander too and it won't help them on the next house map (2020s).

They've gerrymandered NY and IL, would be gerrymandering CA if the voters there hadn't chosen to have an independent commission do it, just as the republicans are gerrymandering FL, PA, and OH. If both parties gave up gerrymandering and had the whole country do it by independent commission, the overall effect would be about equal - some safe democratic districts would become competitive as well as some safe republican districts, and a mixture of swing districts would find themselves safe. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The democrats won't run on it because they gerrymander too and it won't help them on the next house map (2020s).

They've gerrymandered NY and IL, would be gerrymandering CA if the voters there hadn't chosen to have an independent commission do it, just as the republicans are gerrymandering FL, PA, and OH. If both parties gave up gerrymandering and had the whole country do it by independent commission, the overall effect would be about equal - some safe democratic districts would become competitive as well as some safe republican districts, and a mixture of swing districts would find themselves safe. 

NY wasn't gerrymandered for the Democrats except for the State Assembly.
In IL, the median state legislature district is more Republican than the state as a whole. The median Congressional district has the same PVI as the state. That doesn't sound like a gerrymander to me.

[badgate]

I'm saying that Dems should point to the issue as the cause of gridlock. Once that part sinks in, especially if the party is united around a non-partisan platform for redistricting, it could sway moderate and independent voters who would prefer a functional government.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Id imagine so since the House looks more favorable in 2016 and after.

The FLa redistricting will be a start.

[IceSpear]

It's too inside baseball for most voters to care about, but Democrats should certainly make it a priority anyway.

[Mister Mets]

No on many counts.

They overestimate the extent to which redistricting hurts the party. Geographic sorting favors Republicans, since Democrats tend to live in liberal enclaves, or in urban areas where they have big majorities.

It's also not a smart move politically. Most voters aren't concerned about the mechanics of politics (there's a similar problem with running on campaign finance issues) and those that are would be disproportionately Republican, since college-educated whites are more likely to be Republicans. This could end up increasing Republican turnout.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Democrats want to redistrict the wealth?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As far as you can get from a kitchen sink issue as you can. So, err, no.

[ElectionsGuy]

The idea could have merit. It's an argument that would need to be repeated over and over and over before voters get it, but it can be boiled down: the last redistricting was political, so too many seats were drawn to keep incumbents safe. The plethora of safe districts is the cause of gridlock. Elect us for redistricting reform.

What do y'all think?

I think that's kind of a scam, I would be surprised if they actually would do that instead of gerrymandering more seats in their favor (if they gain majorities in many cases). But no one will ever know until then.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The democrats won't run on it because they gerrymander too and it won't help them on the next house map (2020s).

They've gerrymandered NY and IL, would be gerrymandering CA if the voters there hadn't chosen to have an independent commission do it, just as the republicans are gerrymandering FL, PA, and OH. If both parties gave up gerrymandering and had the whole country do it by independent commission, the overall effect would be about equal - some safe democratic districts would become competitive as well as some safe republican districts, and a mixture of swing districts would find themselves safe. 

NY wasn't gerrymandered for the Democrats except for the State Assembly.
In IL, the median state legislature district is more Republican than the state as a whole. The median Congressional district has the same PVI as the state. That doesn't sound like a gerrymander to me.

While Upstate New York and Downstate IL isn't gerrymandered that much overall, within NYC and Chicago, there are tons of gerrymandered districts designed to favor democrats.

[tmthforu94]

This could be used to rally those in the base, but I suspect the average voter would be turned off if they were told "Vote for Democrats so we can gerrymander and not the Republicans."