JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 02:03, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\16 01:26, Recliner wrote:

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape.

Except it isn't gerrymandering, because the shape is not controlled by
government but by public choice. On Entourage, one of the characters
tried to sweet-talk the mayor of the neighbouring city (played by the
Homer Simpson actor) to enlarge the city to include his house.

In Britain by comparison, the borders of local government are all
controlled from above, and bits of Lancashire and Yorkshire have been
reassigned to universal local chagrin.

If it's controlled by politicians from the affected districts, then it's
gerrymandering.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

But the shape of the city of LA is so bizarre that it can't have been
created in that form for electoral purposes. Neither the state nor the
federal government would have been fooled. It must have been done for the
purpose of control over transport services (subject to the moth-eating in
the form of Beverly Hills, etc).

Yes, it really is a bizarre shape -- presumably it's changed over time?
Maybe it has something to do with who paid to develop each area (putting in
roads, services, etc)?

Incidentally, state and federal governments do nothing to stop
gerrymandering: it's the same two parties who connive at it wherever they
can. It suits politicians at all levels to have seats that are cheap to
defend in elections. Senate seats can't be gerrymandered, but most others
can.