"We're from opposing parties, but we agree on this"

Published December 11, 2014

by Richard Vinroot and Charles Meeker, published in Charlotte Observer, December 10, 2014.

Last month, North Carolinians went to the polls to have their say. Slightly over half of us cast our votes for a Republican to be our representative in Congress. A little less than half of us voted for a Democrat. Despite that close vote, our U.S. House delegation to Washington now consists of 10 Republicans and three Democrats. As we see it, that math doesn’t add up – no matter which side of the political aisle you are on.

On Election Day, we all want our voices to be heard. But politicians more interested in protecting their jobs and their parties have prevented this from happening.

Every 10 years, following the U.S. Census, states re-draw the election map to adjust for changes in population. In North Carolina, members of the N.C. General Assembly are responsible for drawing those maps. Thus, it is understandable that when each party gains control, they draw the maps to protect themselves and their side. But that process is not good for the people of North Carolina and the future of our great state.

The process of drawing voting maps – or redistricting – has a tremendous impact on our government, on issues we care about and our daily lives. Those simple lines on a map affect our environment, the education our children receive, the jobs we have, the roads we ride on and the taxes we pay.

As former mayors of North Carolina’s two largest cities, we know how important it is to have a government that fairly represents the people, and in which voters have confidence. And we believe that the way we have drawn maps in North Carolina for the past five decades or longer has undermined citizens’ confidence in our government, created highly partisan legislative districts and caused gridlock.

We also believe that North Carolinians have had enough. For that reason, we, and other North Carolinians who care about the value of our vote and the future of our state, are supporting a transparent, impartial and fair process for redistricting. We urge you to join us.

The model we support is based on the way Iowa has drawn its maps since 1980. Their maps are required to have districts that are compact, contiguous and follow state and federal law. They cannot be drawn based on the political makeup of districts, past voter turnout or other partisan factors. Instead, the maps are drawn by professionals, reviewed by citizens and then approved or disapproved by the legislature in a timely fashion.

We respectfully urge the newly elected members of the N.C. General assembly – many of whom have expressed support for our proposal in their public statements – to work with us by passing impartial, fair, nonpartisan redistricting reform in 2015. In our view, there is no better way to show respect for our voters and improve our democracy!

Richard Vinroot, a Republican, is a past mayor of Charlotte. Charles Meeker, a Democrat, is a past mayor of Raleigh.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/12/10/5375962/were-from-opposing-parties-but.html#.VImCMofO8ZY

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/12/10/5375962/were-from-opposing-parties-but.html#storylink=cpy

December 11, 2014 at 11:25 am
Norm Kelly says:

I suggest one simple, small modification to this proposal. If my proposal is passed it will be fair. And we'll see how dedicated to unbiased redistricting all the involved parties really are. Let's remember that the Demoncrat Party controlled Raleigh for the majority of 100 years. They avoided changing the way gerrymandering took place. Even when there were calls for getting gerry out of the redistricting process, the leaders of the Demon Party ignored those calls. Which implies (proves?) that the demon party is no more serious about removing gerry than the Republican party is.

So, the simple, few word change proposed to the gerry proposal. The wording should say something to the extent of (i'm not a lawyer (thank God!) so my wording can't be specific) 'when the Democrat party takes over majority control of both House & Senate (state level) then and only then will an outside, non-political body be involved in redistricting'. If the demon party leadership endorses this wording change we'll know they are serious. If the demon party leadership, and the libs at the N&D, editorial writers like Chris, and racist demonstrators like the buffet slayer all accept this proposal, we'll know they are serious. Otherwise, if this entire group rejects this wording change, we'll know they are just being sore losers. Of course, we already know they are just being sore losers, but like every other situation where libs motives are obvious, they will deny this also. There's no way that so much history should be thrown out just because the method used by demons for 100'ish years worked so well for them and now works against them. After all, it's for the children! I know, that's the lib mantra meant to convince us that their terrible scheme/idea should be implemented anyway because they are only thinking of the kids. I couldn't help myself. If we say it's for the kids, perhaps demons won't pay attention, like they expect us not to, and we'll get my wording change passed. If we tell them it's for the children, their eyes will glaze over, and they won't come out of their stupor until after the bill has been signed into law. Kinda like when demons told us we'd have to pass obamacancer in order to know what was in it. Let's try it on the other foot and see if they are willing to accept the lie!

December 11, 2014 at 11:35 am
Richard Bunce says:

As long as humans are involved and "political" data is used in drawing the districts there will be "gerrymandering". The real solution is to use a computer algorithm whose only inputs are number of districts, land area to be divided, distribution of the population within the land area (by census block), and perhaps County borders. Absolutely no demographic data other than census block of residence would be used in the algorithm which then excludes age, sex, religion, political party, ethnicity/"race", etc. Goal would be districts of equal population and compactness. Since the algorithm would not use any other demographic data some of the Federal laws would not be applicable since they focused on not using that data to benefit or harm various entities.

Here is an example of the output of such an algorithm

http://rangevoting.org/NorthCaro.png

December 11, 2014 at 9:04 pm
Ken Updegrave says:

Would love to see this implemented. Sadly, it seems far too reasonable for our political class.