Slay the Dragon

Consider this, California, the largest state in the Union, has a 45:7 ratio of Democrat dominance in its US Congressional Representatives. That's 6.4:1 or about 84% elected members of Congress being Democrats. Within the state assembly, Republican voters are also under represented,with assembly members being 60:18. That is a serious under representation of Republican voters when compared to all polling and statewide office election results. ALL California electoral college votes go to Democrat presidential candidates the six Presidential elections. Yet this gigantic and artificially imposed Democrat advantage in election results, over representation of Democrats compared to popular vote received in the state, is not "gerrymandering" by the criteria used by the frankly and obviously partisan and makers of this 'documentary".

Oh and in fact several of this "documentary" producers (read funders) are Democrat party contributors. Hmm. This is not a documentary, but a partisan polemic, one that deploys a half dozen major logical fallacies. As far as ranked choice voting, or better yet runoffs, why not mention that the data clearly show that would have resulted in a certainty of a 2016 Trump win as well (given the studies showing that libertarians draw 85% from GOP and Greens draw 83% from Dems, and there were a lot more libertarian votes than greens), and would likely have resulting in Bill Clinton losing.

Gerrymandering has been used by both Liberal and Conservatives. But with the systematic taking of local and district elections across the country, conservatives have taken control of how districts are drawn to purposefully minimize Liberal voters. They have been funded by Super Pacs (I.e. Koch brothers) and have misused and abused the power of redistricting.Districts should be drawn and based on population and be as simple and as small as they can be. All registered voters should not be identified by any party when a district is drawn. They should not be drawn by any Political party.

Greetings again from the darkness. It's no wonder our faith in democracy is waning. The list of reasons and the targets to point fingers are both numerous. Heck, one of the last-standing Presidential hopefuls has spent most of his life believing and preaching that there is a better way. This documentary from co-directors Chris Durrance and Barak Goodman ensures gerrymandering remains on the list of reasons. They weave together three stories from Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to demonstrate how a party can invoke a strategy of gerrymandering, and what the long-term impact can mean.

We've long understood the basics of gerrymandering. It is when one political party works to carve up the voting districts in order to benefit one party or handicap the other. The film educates us on the fine art of "packing" and "cracking." Packing involves concentrating the opposing party's voters into a few districts, while cracking involves spreading out (diluting) that party's voters amidst many districts. Both are designed to render opposition votes meaningless. We even learn how gerrymandering got its name ... a link to Elbridge Gerry, a former Governor of Massachusetts and Vice President to James Madison.

The "star" of the Michigan segment is Kate Fahey, and we see how her 2016 Facebook post led her directly into political activism, and the formation of "Voters Not Politicians" (VNP). Because she is so energetic and engaging, it's clear why the filmmakers devoted so much time to this segment. Ballot initiatives, petitions, speeches, interviews, the Michigan Supreme Court, and ultimately, voting day ... this is her journey and we get to come along for the ride.

North Carolina and Wisconsin offer more details on the fights against gerrymandering, but neither of these stories go quite as in-depth, although we do follow the Wisconsin case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy's retirement changes everything. There is a very informative segment on the Republican's national strategy after Obama was elected. Survival of the party was in jeopardy, and behind-the-scenes strategists like Chris Jankowski and Tom Hoeffler were specialists brought in to focus on the best approach to re-districting across the country ... something called the Redmap Project.

There are a lot of moving parts included in the film by Durrance and Goodman: tracing the 2014 Flint water crises to the 2010 elections, insight into ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), discussions of Lobbyists writing bills, details on voter suppression, and input from journalists, radio talk show hosts, political consultants, and attorneys. Author David Daley comments throughout with his opinions on specific examples of gerrymandering. The grass roots movement to end gerrymandering in Michigan was fascinating to watch, and there is mention that both parties have used gerrymandering to their advantage over the years. The difference makers these days are Big Data and Big Tech ... highly complex analytical tools that turn this into a science. "Independent committees" drawing district lines is offered as a solution, but if the last decade has taught us anything, it's that most everyone has an agenda and true independent thinkers are a rare breed. Whether calling this an "assault on Democracy" is accurate or not, it seems quite obvious that there must be a better way ... and a better way is needed.

A tough fight here in the US for democracy. Amazing how the Republicans fight - in Fussball they would see the red card

My state polls at about 53% Democrat 42% GOP in the last ten years on average. But 75% of the Representatives, and 100% of the Senators we sent to the US Congress and Senate are Democrats. The anti-gerrymandering proposed in this documentary would result in even more Democrat seats, which is to say even disenfranchisement of GOP voters. Like the other reviewer I have wonder why the documentary makers did not note that ranked choice voting would have given Donald Trump a larger margin of victory, and less GOP seats lost in the 2018 midterms? Actually ranked choice would have mean no president Kennedy and no President Clinton. Why is Georgia's representation unfair but the fact that both senators from Virginia are Democrats when that state cleanly averages 50% to 48%?