Economically speaking, can't new districts can be reestablished faster than people can move around? I don't have a lot of money for moving.

It would require a concerted and long term effort to engage in. Rather than mass migrations, I'm suggesting relatively small distance moves to the interior fringes of red districts. It would have to be done by people who are already relatively mobile. For example, I myself have made three moves within that last ten years.

I'm envisioning a form of expansion and blending into red areas in a gradual basis. What this would do would shrink the overall GOP voter base in those red districts and add to the preexisting numbers of blue voters.

The most likely destinations would be those particular districts where a few hundred to a thousand blue votes would make all of the difference.

There are very,very few districts where "a few hundred to a thousand blue votes would make all the difference."

Well, we sort of fluctuate. First time we went for Obama, next time we did not.
Sometimes I think I am crazy for living here, but I like the environment (not so many people and LOTS of trees!), and I need to stay to help at least keep it purple.

I would think it illegal, but if one wasn't too far from a post office or mail drop in the target district, it might be doable.

It depends on where you hang your hat.

For example college students can legally register to vote in the districts in which they're residing while they're in school. Either that, or vote absentee in their homes elsewhere, but not both at the same time, of course.

A lot of people spend a lot of time in more than one place for any number of reasons.

I'm moving now from one district to another, I'm not sure how long that will take but get mail at both places.

Some folks I know don't rent or own, per se, but instead spend time at friends and families homes, and they would have a choice, I think.

Red voters are ours, if we fight for what's right, and we help them understand what's right.

We could appeal to them with some of those "policy" thingys.

IIRC, they were "tricks" used by "Democrats" to dominate elections in the mid-twentieth century.

Is that basically correct?

People watch what leaders say and do, what a shock. They give lip service to elections, if they were serious term limits would also be a law. It is a proven fact that career politicians mostly suck if they make their home Congress. Fuck the electoral college, there I said it, and make everything by popular vote - even the supreme court.

So people have time before moving. I'm staying put. Minnesota does redistricting using a committee advised by the state Supreme Court. Our system is very fair. More important will be a huge Democratic turnout in 2020. We need to take control of as many state legislatures that year as possible. That's the real cure for Republican gerrymandering.

that prevent gerrymandering by any party. That would be my suggestion, frankly.

At least, I saw some being interviewed on TV once. It's gotten so that I adhere to "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." Never heard anything about that again, though.

I have some ideas, also borrowed from the "other side."

Above, all, the effort needs to be, IMO, very organized, preferably top down, very consistent, systematic and persistent. Both the overall effort and each element of it.

Nationwide voter registration effort

Youth groups

College Groups

Fun kids' books from toddler up

Some secular equivalent of churches. I don't mean a secular cult. I mean some kind of network that would perform for Democrats some of the the functions that churches serve for Republicans, but without any religion. I am not at all sure of this, but I have a very dim and distant memory-before I was 7--of a window in my neighborhood on which the words "Democratic Club" were written. Whether or not I dreamt it, something like that would be useful for many reasons. It's really tough to compete with "This is how God wants you to vote." But we need something.

Speaking of which, I'd love to see the religious tax deduction go, but I know all hell would break loose. Not, you know, literally, though.

Vans and drivers to supplement the volunteer GOTV effort.

Education about, and assistance with, absentee ballots, voter IDs, etc

TIME OFF TO VOTE, but only if you actually have voted.

It would also be lovely if we could keep Texas from deciding what school history books used all over the country are going to say--or omit.

Most of all, we have to find some way to overcome the 60 vote rule, not just for nominations, but on substance. And then pass some stuff that really helps people. If we can't do that, we may as skip the rest

A start would be to just move out of certain city limits.

Atlanta is deep blue. 10 miles in either direction outside the city limits is blood red.

My district was in the big blue "Rez district" of AZ, and republicans gerrymandered me into a red district with all stupid rednecks. It went something like 70% republican in the election this year.

My vote means nothing here, except on school issues, etc.

out of the hands of politicians and into an independent agency whose criteria for how they are redrawn. Iowa has an independent agency, it seems, called the Legislative Services Agency that drew up a statutory process that is used for redistricting. Here's a link to the details of their process, it is an interesting read, imo:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/Central/Guides/redist.pdf

with every State enacting independent bodies redrawing the map instead of politicians.

I think it would but would love to stand corrected and know it could come under the purview of the Federal Government.

a state's voting policies violate the right to vote. They have done so in some cases, and probably should in many others. There are currently DOJ investigations ongoing in some state with regard to voting rights.

only on individual State cases.

Maybe a law making it illegal would be the easiest way to get properly drawn districts. It should be illegal because it's dishonest.

that on November 12, just 3 days ago, the USSC has took up a gerrymandering case re Alabama:

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday takes up the thorny question of what kind of gerrymandering is acceptable, and what kind is not. The court is being asked to decide whether a 2010 state legislative redistricting in Alabama overloaded some districts with black Democrats on the basis of race or party.

Voting rights cases scramble politics and race. In this case, it is the Democrats who are crying foul because of what they call unconstitutional quotas. In contrast, conservative Republicans, usually critics of racial considerations, this time are defending government classifications based on race.

In the 1990s, the conservative Supreme Court majority, in a series of decisions, ruled that if a redistricting plan is motivated predominantly by racial considerations, it is unconstitutional. Those decisions came in cases brought by conservative Republicans who objected to the Justice Department's attempt to expand the number of majority black or Hispanic legislative districts under the Voting Rights Act in the South.

"Now, the tables are turned," says election-law expert Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "It's the liberals and Democrats that are trying to use the racial gerrymandering claim to stop Republicans from packing reliable Democratic minority voters into a smaller number of districts."

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/12/363375057/supreme-court-case-seeks-source-of-alabama-gerrymandering

I'm not a fan of NPR as I think they have veered right in their opinions and coverage rather than being neutral but, in this case, given the OP subject matter, it seemed appropriate to use their site for it's information.

It seems there have been Constitutional challenges as to specific States' redrawing boundaries but not on the bigger question of gerrymandering.

non-partisan entities can redraw the districts, which happened after the last election. We are getting better results in our elections since then.

I only became aware of the Iowa process due to googling gerrymandering/redistricting as I found the question posed by the OP an interesting question.

To find out independent processes are occurring in other States as well is wonderful, it sounds like it is beginning to spread, let's hope it becomes standard in every State which will, I'm sure, engender the same results California is getting, better results in elections.

Thanks for the info, it really is encouraging!

Yesterday after work I vaped some weed then went to go stare at actual Picasso paintings before eating at a delicious Turkish restaurant.

environmental. I thought the way to stop destructive lumbering, stream pollution and other ecologically damaging practices by local and homogenous populations who didn't know any other way was for a bunch of tree huggers to move in and tip the balance of power.

I can see how this strategy would be useful politically too. Maybe it's time for liberals to start moving into red states in the south and mid-west to do this. A big problem would be to figure out how these folks are going to make a living in those places.

Even if it doesn't crest until 2032.

How much would it take to swing a state like Idaho or Wyoming?

About 66,000 in Idaho and about 63,000 in Wyoming.

Of course, there is no gerrymandering in either of those states.

it is a slow process but when I moved here we had no Democratic Party in the county. Now we actually have dems that run for office. They lose but at least it's a start and we have a dem party organization now in the county.

Not pandering to urban minorities, millennial's and white urban gentry. Those groups are not reliable voters, meanwhile the vast majority of white America (still 67-72% of all voters) is not chained to the Republican party and would be receptive to a message aimed at them.

That doesn't mean we ignore the previously mentioned groups, but tailoring our electoral strategy to them only works with a guy like PBO. If we try that strategy in 2016, we are going to get smoked.

This much?


And you can't be as 'all ears' as this guy.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

And voted in a Democrat. Gwen Graham might be a moderate Democrat, but if she is as sane a moderate Democrat as her father (for Gov. & Sen. Bob Graham) she will be the best US House Representative this district has ever voted into office.

She's particularly refreshing after listening to Tea Bagger Steve Southerland for the last several years, who campaigned on voting against and plans to repeal "ObamaCare", who criticized Graham for taking "over $10,000 from Nancy Pelosi" while his campaign benefited from over $100,000 from the Koch brothers, and who was a sleaze and a liar for the entire time he was in office.

So I plan to stay put and to devote more time and effort to trying to sway the Florida Democratic Party to support more real Democrats.

regular shapes and continuous.