Redistricting has always been a problem in this country. “Legislative redistricting is among the most intensely fought battles in American politics. Through redistricting, political parties seek to control government, incumbents seek job security, and minority groups seek representation.” (McDonald pg. 371) This all needs to change to be more representative and turn back to what the founding fathers intended of a representative government, that is one that represents and is for the people. Partisanship needs to be weeded out of the process.
We will first look at how redistricting played out in 2001-2001 through Michael McDonalds research, and then talk about the one state that is an outlier, that has removed partisanship from their process …show more content…
The state is Iowa. There are just over 3 million people in all of the state. There is a temporary advisory redistricting commission through the nonpartisan Legislative Service Bureau (LSB). (Mehaji) This board comes up with three plans “that have no political or election data, including (not knowing) the addresses of incumbents.” (State of Iowa) Any political actor is not allowed to weigh in on this process. It is completely neutral. This system takes partisanship out of the equation, and creates a system that regularly produces the most competitive districts in the country. It is a blind process that makes the results fair for everyone involved. “Most other states blatantly allow politics to be infused into the process, leaving the impression - and sometimes the reality - that the election system is being rigged.” (Jan) Iowa has the distinction of having some of the most competitive elections in the country. This is due to this system of redistricting taking the problem of party’s participation being tied to the process. “Four of Iowa’s five congressional districts were considered to be competitive according to election handicappers…” (McDonald pg. 390) Iowa’s races are typically tossups. (Jan) People tend to represent not their party’s ideology, but pay attention to those that are supposed to matter, the people. This is something that has been lacking in this country for a long
We will first look at how redistricting played out in 2001-2001 through Michael McDonalds research, and then talk about the one state that is an outlier, that has removed partisanship from their process …show more content…
The state is Iowa. There are just over 3 million people in all of the state. There is a temporary advisory redistricting commission through the nonpartisan Legislative Service Bureau (LSB). (Mehaji) This board comes up with three plans “that have no political or election data, including (not knowing) the addresses of incumbents.” (State of Iowa) Any political actor is not allowed to weigh in on this process. It is completely neutral. This system takes partisanship out of the equation, and creates a system that regularly produces the most competitive districts in the country. It is a blind process that makes the results fair for everyone involved. “Most other states blatantly allow politics to be infused into the process, leaving the impression - and sometimes the reality - that the election system is being rigged.” (Jan) Iowa has the distinction of having some of the most competitive elections in the country. This is due to this system of redistricting taking the problem of party’s participation being tied to the process. “Four of Iowa’s five congressional districts were considered to be competitive according to election handicappers…” (McDonald pg. 390) Iowa’s races are typically tossups. (Jan) People tend to represent not their party’s ideology, but pay attention to those that are supposed to matter, the people. This is something that has been lacking in this country for a long