Sign in to follow this  
Shortforbob

Gerrymandering

Recommended Posts

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-03/gerrymandering-us-midterm-election-republican-ace/10461588

Elections for Australia's federal parliament are administered by the Australian Electoral Commission, a non-partisan, professional agency, charged with maintaining the electoral roll, the conduct of elections and conducting electoral redistributions, dividing states and territories into seats for Australia's House of Representatives.

In recent decades, the determination of electoral boundaries appears to be free of partisan interference and manipulation.

 

 

The situation is different in the US, where state and local governments have responsibility for the administration of elections, including electoral redistricting. The US Constitution provides that every 10 years a census shall be conducted, to determine the apportionment of the House of Representatives seats (Congressional districts) across the 50 states, in proportion to the population of those states.

The US Supreme Court insists on strict adherence to equal population in each district, ruling out an older form of electoral manipulation known as malapportionment.

In at least 26 US states, redistricting is a political affair, an act of the state legislature, requiring majority approval from the houses of the state legislature and the governor's assent. In 2011-12 — the last redistricting — Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 of these 26 states and Democrats in five states, with divided government prevailing in two of the 26 states. Courts or commissions controlled redistricting in 14 states.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2018 at 5:01 PM, Shortforbob said:

In 2011-12 — the last redistricting — Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 of these 26 states and Democrats in five states, with divided government prevailing in two of the 26 states. Courts or commissions controlled redistricting in 14 states.

and

On 11/2/2018 at 4:43 AM, dogballs Tom said:

They gerrymandered up more safe seats for TeamD than they did for TeamR! Must be tired of winning. Or maybe both halves of the Duopoly do this?

https://insideelections.com/ratings/spectrum/2018-house-ratings-october-26-2018/house

 

Quote

 

Currently Safe Seats

Democrat: 187 Republican: 161

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US it should be done by Zip Code. No manipulation. Just straight up math and let the representation actually reflect the make-up of all districts. But like everything else in this great land, our government screws it all up in the name of politics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

In the US it should be done by Zip Code. No manipulation. Just straight up math and let the representation actually reflect the make-up of all districts. But like everything else in this great land, our government screws it all up in the name of politics.

 

 

That's a good idea.

I'm pretty sure that the various elected bodies would get their hooks into the Post Office and manipulate it somehow

The only real answer, over the long run, is for voters to take their job seriously

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

In the US it should be done by Zip Code. No manipulation. Just straight up math and let the representation actually reflect the make-up of all districts. But like everything else in this great land, our government screws it all up in the name of politics.

 

If you are looking for something non political, wide geographic coverage and easily organized try cell towers. and their bandwidth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 42000 zip codes in the US. I'm in favor of increasing the size of the House but that might be a bit ridiculous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

There's 42000 zip codes in the US. I'm in favor of increasing the size of the House but that might be a bit ridiculous.

 

Not if 90% stay home in their constituency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four states have anti gerrymandering measures on the ballot -

https://www.wsj.com/articles/four-states-to-vote-on-redistricting-measures-ahead-of-2020-census-1541242800

Ballot measures in Colorado, Utah and Michigan would create commissions to draw maps for state offices and the U.S. House. A ballot item in Missouri aims to change the way state-level districts are drawn. These measures, plus a redistricting change Ohio voters approved in May, make 2018 the busiest year for such items, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

There's 42000 zip codes in the US. I'm in favor of increasing the size of the House but that might be a bit ridiculous.

 

Oh boy. Not suggesting a rep for each zip.  Currently there are 435 representatives. But dividing 42000 by 435 you get like 97 zips per district/seat. However that would be disproportional with regards to population density. 

To arrive at a proportional distribution and maintain a house of 435 seats, you would divide the citizenry (like currently around 325,000,000) by the number of seats. So each district would be 747000 constituents. 

Then you take zip codes sequentially and based on population of each in accordance with population density, from the most recent census, you build a district. If you need to split a zip, you use the +4 suffix to round out that district. Then you move to the next district, and so on. Straight up representation with nothing paid to race, color, gender, creed or political affiliation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of a parliament style government. States and the Electoral College are at best vestigial. We only have States because we were colonies. We have an EC because we didn't want to extend the franchise at all and it was a misguided attempt to curtail even that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Four states have anti gerrymandering measures on the ballot -

https://www.wsj.com/articles/four-states-to-vote-on-redistricting-measures-ahead-of-2020-census-1541242800

Ballot measures in Colorado, Utah and Michigan would create commissions to draw maps for state offices and the U.S. House. A ballot item in Missouri aims to change the way state-level districts are drawn. These measures, plus a redistricting change Ohio voters approved in May, make 2018 the busiest year for such items, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

Who appoints the commissions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Oh boy. Not suggesting a rep for each zip.  Currently there are 435 representatives. But dividing 42000 by 435 you get like 97 zips per district/seat. However that would be disproportional with regards to population density. 

To arrive at a proportional distribution and maintain a house of 435 seats, you would divide the citizenry (like currently around 325,000,000) by the number of seats. So each district would be 747000 constituents. 

Then you take zip codes sequentially and based on population of each in accordance with population density, from the most recent census, you build a district. If you need to split a zip, you use the +4 suffix to round out that district. Then you move to the next district, and so on. Straight up representation with nothing paid to race, color, gender, creed or political affiliation. 

435 seats isn't enough.

350,000,000 / 435 = better than 800K people per representative.  That number should be no more than 100,000 and better at 50,000.

It would make buying politicians a lot more expensive for lobbyists and the smaller constituency would provide for better oversight by the citizenry.  That's another reason I'd rather not have all the representatives hanging out in DC for the party 'leadership' and lobbyists to prey on.

It would also make it very, very expensive to get large amounts of financial support in swing seats and they would be less of a national campaign issue.

I kinda like the idea of 7000 representatives with most living within their district.  Ten per state and a state paid staff would give you 500 quartered in DC who would be able to handle the federal administrivia.

The words " a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. " should have some meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Who appoints the commissions?

 

In Michigan, they will be chosen randomly by the Secretary of State from pools of Democratic, Republican, and Unaffiliated voters.  They will be charged with drawing contiguous and compact borders unlike some of the paisley-like boundaries we currently have.  The commission will be composed of 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 5 Unaffiliated.  Seems like a reasonable process and is expected to pass.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

435 seats isn't enough.

350,000,000 / 435 = better than 800K people per representative.  That number should be no more than 100,000 and better at 50,000.

It would make buying politicians a lot more expensive for lobbyists and the smaller constituency would provide for better oversight by the citizenry.  That's another reason I'd rather not have all the representatives hanging out in DC for the party 'leadership' and lobbyists to prey on.

It would also make it very, very expensive to get large amounts of financial support in swing seats and they would be less of a national campaign issue.

I kinda like the idea of 7000 representatives with most living within their district.  Ten per state and a state paid staff would give you 500 quartered in DC who would be able to handle the federal administrivia.

The words " a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. " should have some meaning.

Pardon me but you owe me a new keyboard sir. 7-8000 members of the house? You think there is gridlock now, multiple that by nearly 20 fold? Wholly mother of pearl we may as well just move to direct democracy, The Republic is nearly lost now anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Pardon me but you owe me a new keyboard sir. 7-8000 members of the house? You think there is gridlock now, multiple that by nearly 20 fold? Wholly mother of pearl we may as well just move to direct democracy, The Republic is nearly lost now anyways.

Sure would fuck up the 2 party house though.  In fact, 2 party politics would be virtually impossible.

Without the DC local "guidance" of the party whips and nice big parties in the nice big hotels.  The representatives might actually represent the people who vote for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7-8000 is far too many, not to mention having to crack open the Constitution to divide up the duties of the state bound members and the national members, but doubling the number would not be a horrible idea. Smaller districts would make rep's more responsive to the voters, the higher electoral college count would reduce the ability to lose the popular while winning the electoral votes and would increase the opportunity for a grass-roots candidate to win. 

As for the Republic being nearly lost, not sure but it IS certainly under stress by similar forces that brought down the Roman Republic ie: a governing system overloaded by increasing population. Is it any wonder that a governing system designed for a 17th century agrarian society is strained by a 330 million technological one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Who appoints the commissions?

 

Good question. The Michigan proposal just adjusts who does the gerrymandering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Good question. The Michigan proposal just adjusts who does the gerrymandering. 

 

1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

In Michigan, they will be chosen randomly by the Secretary of State from pools of Democratic, Republican, and Unaffiliated voters.  They will be charged with drawing contiguous and compact borders unlike some of the paisley-like boundaries we currently have.  The commission will be composed of 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 5 Unaffiliated.  Seems like a reasonable process and is expected to pass.  

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure the Republicans hate the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Who appoints the commissions?

 

In Michigan, they will be chosen randomly by the Secretary of State from pools of Democratic, Republican, and Unaffiliated voters.  They will be charged with drawing contiguous and compact borders unlike some of the paisley-like boundaries we currently have.  The commission will be composed of 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 5 Unaffiliated.  Seems like a reasonable process and is expected to pass.  

No matter who appoints whom, it ultimately depends on the fair-mindedness of the majority, and the willingness of the majority to stand up to bullying by the unfair-minded few.

 

4 minutes ago, chinabald said:

...  ...    ...   The Michigan proposal just adjusts who does the gerrymandering. 

As long as it prevents them from profiting by it, then it matters a lot less.

If you start out with the assumption that most people are cheaters, that is kind of like what we call in poker a "tell."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chinabald said:

Good question. The Michigan proposal just adjusts who does the gerrymandering. 

It appears to be really important that the two major parties have a say and can give and take a little to shut out the

 

13 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

7-8000 is far too many, not to mention having to crack open the Constitution to divide up the duties of the state bound members and the national members, but doubling the number would not be a horrible idea. Smaller districts would make rep's more responsive to the voters, the higher electoral college count would reduce the ability to lose the popular while winning the electoral votes and would increase the opportunity for a grass-roots candidate to win. 

As for the Republic being nearly lost, not sure but it IS certainly under stress by similar forces that brought down the Roman Republic ie: a governing system overloaded by increasing population. Is it any wonder that a governing system designed for a 17th century agrarian society is strained by a 330 million technological one?

All representatives are state bound.  A lot of the rules and schedules of government depended on communications and the limitations of the 18th century in that regard did make it cumbersome.  But those same constraints worked on the population as a whole and their access to their representatives. 

I still prefer the idea of a representative republic over a yammering mob who will shift one way or another in a heartbeat or advertisement.  Two years is a decent term for a representative; I would actually like to make it three with a two term limit.

As to the Roman Republic, don't forget the visigoths or the Alamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

 

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure the Republicans hate the idea.

Yes the Republicans hate the idea because they are in charge of the gerrymandering at this moment. If the script was flipped and the Dems had the numbers it would be the Dems who would hate the idea. There is a whole lot more in that proposal then a simple fix to how districts are drawn, and I can't believe you can find 5 out of 13 people who are truly unaffiliated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No matter who appoints whom, it ultimately depends on the fair-mindedness of the majority, and the willingness of the majority to stand up to bullying by the unfair-minded few.

 

As long as it prevents them from profiting by it, then it matters a lot less.

If you start out with the assumption that most people are cheaters, that is kind of like what we call in poker a "tell."

-DSK

Who said I thought anyone was cheating? The current districts in Michigan were drawn up under the current laws, no cheating at all. Previous districts were drawn up under previous administrations, not cheating.

So if you thought i started out assuming that people are cheaters, what does your poker "tell"  say about you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Who said I thought anyone was cheating? ...    ...   ...

??

That's kind of what "gerrymandering" is

Your statement above implies that you think changing the rules is going to just swap one set of gerrymanderers for a different set of gerrymanderers.

 

8 minutes ago, chinabald said:

...    ...    ...

So if you thought i started out assuming that people are cheaters, what does your poker "tell"  say about you?

 

That I'm aware that some people...... fortunately rather few...... are cheaters, and that some of the cheaters actually think that makes them smarter than others. Same as the way some thieves think work is for suckers.

Is this not realistic?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

7-8000 is far too many, not to mention having to crack open the Constitution to divide up the duties of the state bound members and the national members, but doubling the number would not be a horrible idea. Smaller districts would make rep's more responsive to the voters, the higher electoral college count would reduce the ability to lose the popular while winning the electoral votes and would increase the opportunity for a grass-roots candidate to win. 

As for the Republic being nearly lost, not sure but it IS certainly under stress by similar forces that brought down the Roman Republic ie: a governing system overloaded by increasing population. Is it any wonder that a governing system designed for a 17th century agrarian society is strained by a 330 million technological one?

At some point you get to a place where the house becomes unwieldy, cumbersome and unmanageable. We may have already exceed that and the two party system is what currently keeps things in line.... god forbid.

As for the EC, so long as states are winner take all it doesn't matter how many delegates there are. The problem is the states should not be winner take all. That would go a long way to fixing things as in a presidential cycle those seeking our highest office would have to earn every delegate vote rather than simply focus on a handful of battle ground states.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 Tom - you are being deceptive, well OK lets call it lying. 

It is an integral part of gerrymandering to "pack" the opposition into safe seats. 

It's still gerrymandering - with the purpose of maximizing the number of people whose votes do not count. 

And as such, it is also an effective means of voter suppression 

But you're in favor of that too, aren't ya?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Michigan is taking this on:michigan-1024x768.jpg

Not too bad but the Detroit area looks confused. 

new_distric_map_0.jpg

 

Explain this to me and win a prize.  Part of the Proposal reads:

• Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan’s diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates. 

And for a fair perspective, Democrats support the Proposal and GOP is against it so who might be benefitting from the current districting?


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Why Michigan is taking this on:michigan-1024x768.jpg

Not too bad but the Detroit area looks confused. 

new_distric_map_0.jpg

 

Explain this to me and win a prize.  Part of the Proposal reads:

• Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan’s diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates. 

And for a fair perspective, Democrats support the Proposal and GOP is against it so who might be benefitting from the current districting?


 

These might not be considered “geographically compact”

48B15461-EABB-4154-8B32-7BE164B64CF9.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

22 Tom - you are being deceptive, well OK lets call it lying. 

It is an integral part of gerrymandering to "pack" the opposition into safe seats. 

It's still gerrymandering - with the purpose of maximizing the number of people whose votes do not count. 

And as such, it is also an effective means of voter suppression 

But you're in favor of that too, aren't ya?  

Gerrymandering is about voter suppression?   I am pretty sure it is about stacking the deck with more voters than the opposing party.  Both sides do it.  

Democrats draw wavy lines and odd shapes to include neighborhoods that vote for democrats and split up neighborhoods that vote GOP.  The GOP does the same thing in reverse.  Neither effort prevents people from voting (actual suppression) it limits or multiples their collective for one candidate/party.  

Back when a lot of this started it was the courts ordering gerrymandering, to allow for more Minority representations.  

Any plan based solely on geography could very well reverse those early court orders.  

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Gerrymandering is about voter suppression?

I would say so. The practice essentially nullifies votes, same result as preventing them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

I would say so. The practice essentially nullifies votes, same result as preventing them. 

I understand how you could see it that way, but nobody is being prevented from voting.

 The votes in the gerrymandered districts only affect the House of. Representatives.  

Votes for State and federal offices are not effected or suppressed in anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
On 11/2/2018 at 4:43 AM, dogballs Tom said:

They gerrymandered up more safe seats for TeamD than they did for TeamR! Must be tired of winning. Or maybe both halves of the Duopoly do this?

https://insideelections.com/ratings/spectrum/2018-house-ratings-october-26-2018/house

 

Quote

 

Currently Safe Seats

Democrat: 187 Republican: 161

 

 

.

3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

22 Tom - you are being deceptive, well OK lets call it lying. 

It is an integral part of gerrymandering to "pack" the opposition into safe seats. 

It's still gerrymandering - with the purpose of maximizing the number of people whose votes do not count. 

And as such, it is also an effective means of voter suppression 

But you're in favor of that too, aren't ya?  

What is the lie you're complaining about?

You don't believe both halves of the Duopoly try to pack districts to their advantage or something? They do.

What's your basis for supposing I like voter suppression? Or are you just an asshole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.7178a6708af7e82e80c47b5243765f28.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, The Joker said:

I understand how you could see it that way, but nobody is being prevented from voting.

 The votes in the gerrymandered districts only affect the House of. Representatives.  

Votes for State and federal offices are not effected or suppressed in anyway.  

Totally wrong Joker and Tom - 

In many states, our Ohio for one, state rep and senate districts are also gerrymandered out the wazoo - to an awful effect, no paid sick days, rotten min wage, etc. 

And it totally discourages voting, as it is intended to do. Ask any GOPPER in Ohio 9 how excited they are to have the chance to throw away their vote in a race with a pre-determined outcome. (Kaptur, sorta progressive) 

And Jim Jordan is locked into Ohio 4 - he can be as extreme as he wants because the Dems (Ms. Garret) have almost no chance (sure hope I am wrong) 

Guess what? Those two districts border each other - and even in Kaptur's Dem seat, she does not have to listen to progressives either because she knows whe is going to win. 

If those two districts were re-done into two competitive ones, you'd see a major difference . . 

And Tom, don't give us that "Both Sides-ism" crap - gerrymandering is at least 80% GOP, as is political corruption, fake news, dark money, voter suppression, and many other afflictions to the common good. 

Just the facts, Jack !!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, long lines to vote are also an obvious form of voter suppression . .  

From VOX    "Polling places around the country have been quietly disappearing for years, especially in areas with a high percentage of voters of color." 

And it's at least 80% done by GOPPERS - none of that both sides-ism crap !! 

How can you not loath people who have such contempt for republican values ?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Republican values' seem to have morphed into "the end justifies the means"

Gerrymandering, voter supression, intimidation, false claims of fraud (lying in general), fearmongering.... All fair game in the name of 'Winning!'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kirwan - 

Since you are in SD, may I recommend the Vets For Peace Golden Rule Project as a worthy use of your valuable time? 

Here is the legendary old girl . .  on her way toward the big blue Pacific if we get it right . .  

2015-09-01_4921_LLGoldRuleCoronado.jpg

Back to politics - I spent a lot of time in NorCal working on that boat, and learned much about your beautiful state. 

CA gets a bad rap, picked on all the time, but operated better than cesspools of corruption in much of the rest of the country. 

As it is said,  La Lucha Sigue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And of course, long lines to vote are also an obvious form of voter suppression . .  

From VOX    "Polling places around the country have been quietly disappearing for years, especially in areas with a high percentage of voters of color." 

And it's at least 80% done by GOPPERS - none of that both sides-ism crap !! 

How can you not loath people who have such contempt for republican values ?   

We did pass a law to improve our fucked up districts, sometime in the distant future when Jordan moves on to greater graft.    

Serious polling question.   I asked for a democratic ballot last primary,   I did an absentee ballot last election.   I did an unaffiliated ballot but voted early in May so I could vote on the gerrymandering issue.   I got mailed an invitation for an Absentee ballot last month.   I mailed it back, got my ballot, very easy and painless.   Very much what a government for the people should be doing.   Do they do this evenly and fairly?    My neighbors are reliable Jordan Trump Pence supporters.    How can I tell which voters got the easy absentee ballot?    All of them that applied for one two years ago I hope, or likely Republicans, or only in Republican counties?   What does the county electoral board know when they make decisions?    Am I a cynic and Ohio just did a good job?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kirwan said:

'Republican values' seem to have morphed into "the end justifies the means"

Gerrymandering, voter supression, intimidation, false claims of fraud (lying in general), fearmongering.... All fair game in the name of 'Winning!'

 

Just more evidence the Rs have become D-lite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Just more evidence the Rs have become D-lite.

The R's have become Trump's toilet paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lark - 

Suggest you ask your local Bd. of Elections - those are very good questions . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And Tom, don't give us that "Both Sides-ism" crap - gerrymandering is at least 80% GOP

"PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T THROW ME IN A SAFE DISTRICT WHERE I AM GUARANTEED TO WIN!"

Said no politician, ever.

People are people, including partisans like yourself and partisans from the other side.

Now, about that elusive basis...

On 11/5/2018 at 7:44 PM, dogballs Tom said:

What's your basis for supposing I like voter suppression?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 11/5/2018 at 7:44 PM, dogballs Tom said:

What's your basis for supposing I like voter suppression?  

 

Because you like gerrymandering, which decreases turnout, and is therefore a form of voter suppression. 

I am being polite here - you really should be able to figure this out on your own. 

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/11/that_low_voter_turnout_a_big_r.html

And of course pols like safe seats, which is why we must not let pols draw electoral boundaries.  

And it's ridiculous to try to play the "both sides-ism" card when, nationally, the Dems have to get at least 5 % more of the 

popular vote just to break even in the number of seats won. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 8:38 AM, BillDBastard said:

In the US it should be done by Zip Code. No manipulation. Just straight up math and let the representation actually reflect the make-up of all districts. But like everything else in this great land, our government screws it all up in the name of politics.

 

That would not be evenly distributed because population cares nothing for zip code.  The areas need to be created such that each is fairly similar to another in terms of total population.  Otherwise rural areas with lower population have an inordinate amount of influence.  This an extremely difficult task to divide the areas up by population and past voting practices.  You want equal population, but you also want the same amount of likely repubs and dems in each area where possible.  Barring that, you want the same number of "solid red" as you want "solid blue" so that those areas cancel out and the remainder that are fairly divided end up choosing the outcome.

I'm not sure how Michigan's solution of a non-partisan council will help - it seems that hiring a statistical modeling company or two would have been a better option.  But barring that, at least a non-partisan group is non-partisan and will hopefully do it the best they can regardless of affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

That would not be evenly distributed because population cares nothing for zip code.  The areas need to be created such that each is fairly similar to another in terms of total population.  Otherwise rural areas with lower population have an inordinate amount of influence.  This an extremely difficult task to divide the areas up by population and past voting practices.  You want equal population, but you also want the same amount of likely repubs and dems in each area where possible.  Barring that, you want the same number of "solid red" as you want "solid blue" so that those areas cancel out and the remainder that are fairly divided end up choosing the outcome.

I'm not sure how Michigan's solution of a non-partisan council will help - it seems that hiring a statistical modeling company or two would have been a better option.  But barring that, at least a non-partisan group is non-partisan and will hopefully do it the best they can regardless of affiliation.

You must have missed my earlier post. On average it takes somewhere on the order of 97 zips comprise a district. However I am not suggesting that each block of 97 zips constitutes a district. Rather that sequentially we go zip to zip adding each until we achieve a required number of people represented. IIRC from my earlier, that was somewhere on the order of 725,000 currently to arrive at the current ranks in the HoR of 435 and this would be based on the census.

As to your last paragraph, I do not think we should be using any sort of qualifier or as you put it, "statistical modeling". Makeup the districts based solely on adjacent zip codes, period. What that character is, or affiliations be,  should not be a consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Joy Behar on the View said the Dems lost Senate seats partly due to Gerrymandering. 

Joy isn't the sharpest pencil in the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Joy isn't the sharpest pencil in the cup.

 

34 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Joy Behar on the View said the Dems lost Senate seats partly due to Gerrymandering. 

and yet - here you two are discussing just how dull the tool in the shed is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

and yet - here you two are discussing just how dull the tool in the shed is.

So do you believe that the dems lost senate seats due to gerrymandering?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saorsa said:

So do you believe that the dems lost senate seats due to gerrymandering?

 

No...just no enough cheating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

You must have missed my earlier post. On average it takes somewhere on the order of 97 zips comprise a district. However I am not suggesting that each block of 97 zips constitutes a district. Rather that sequentially we go zip to zip adding each until we achieve a required number of people represented. IIRC from my earlier, that was somewhere on the order of 725,000 currently to arrive at the current ranks in the HoR of 435 and this would be based on the census.

As to your last paragraph, I do not think we should be using any sort of qualifier or as you put it, "statistical modeling". Makeup the districts based solely on adjacent zip codes, period. What that character is, or affiliations be,  should not be a consideration. 

Once again though, I think it would come down to the problem of population and distribution.  If you aren't adding zipcodes based on statistical voting records, you'll end up accidentally stacking for one candidate or the other.  "Randomness" only equals out over infinite sample size.  A sample size of 97 zips per district is almost guarantee to disenfrachise voters (left or right doesn't matter).  I think government representation is too important to cross our fingers that randomness means fairness - and it almost never does.

I'm just smart enough to know I don't know the right answer.  I DO  know that allowing politicians to draw the lines is a policy for failure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.

Once more, we would use zip codes sequentially to make up a district.

If that requires 1 zip code or 42 zip codes, 999 zip codes, then that is what it takes. Straight up, no manipulation. Start with 10001 and go from there until you hit 725,000 constituents represented. Then on to the next district zip code XXXXX +, +, + etc until you reach 725,000 represented. Rinse and repeat. Cannot be any more random than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grrr... said:

I'm not sure how Michigan's solution of a non-partisan council will help - it seems that hiring a statistical modeling company or two would have been a better option.  But barring that, at least a non-partisan group is non-partisan and will hopefully do it the best they can regardless of affiliation.

You're a good thnker, but they are charged with contiguous/compact/equal population solutions.  I look forward to their recommendations.   

And since you brought it up, what would a statistical modeling company do without a charter and what is your charter?

Grrr, are you in Kent County?  I was amazed that Kent went for Whitmer.  You guys getting smarter or are more dying off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

So do you believe that the dems lost senate seats due to gerrymandering?

Of course it wasn't gerrymandered you senile fuckstick. I mean, it'd take someone so stupid they think a proper pint of bitter  is 16oz to believe that.

I'm just pointing out you rightwing morons are reinforcing the business model of talk personalities - say stupid shit to get hits. You are also reinforcing the shit bias of "news" - that gossipy churnalism gets hits and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

And since you brought it up, what would a statistical modeling company do without a charter and what is your charter?

You can look at the Pennsylvania redistricting court case for various redistricting maps - there are quite a few different ones - https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/pennsylvania-redistricting-lawsuit-case-documents/ they talk about factors used in composing the models, things to think about.

apparently most of the experts didn't choose the "common sense" zip code model. probably because it's a stupid idea which produces  split citys, etc. etc. But - because BillDBastards stupid, he'll cling to it. Bill's part of the problem in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Of course it wasn't gerrymandered you senile fuckstick. I mean, it'd take someone so stupid they think a proper pint of bitter  is 16oz to believe that.

I'm just pointing out you rightwing morons are reinforcing the business model of talk personalities - say stupid shit to get hits. You are also reinforcing the shit bias of "news" - that gossipy churnalism gets hits and money.

I don't know anyone dumb enough to think that of  a pint in a british pub.  Although, I don't know if you've ever been in one.

You probably shouldn't post the silly bullshit under your own 'nym then.  It really makes you look as stupid as your mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I don't know anyone dumb enough to think that of  a pint in a british pub.

you were. that's why we were laughing at you.

On 11/4/2018 at 12:46 PM, Saorsa said:

That's not true.  I still by meat and produce in pounds.  I just checked a can of vegetables.  It said 14.5 oz, 411 grams.  The 14.5 came about when the 1 pound cans were reduced about 10% and rounded to .5.

I have noticed that sugar once sold in 5 pound bags now sell at a  weight 4 pounds.

A 20oz soda shows up as 1.25 pints or 501 ML.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

you were. that's why we were laughing at you.

Maybe you should have read the thread.  The response was to one where your buddy suggested I look at my local grocery for metrification .  That isn't a british pub and it still sells meat and produce in pounds and ounces.

The the 20 ounce soda reference was in regard to current labelling practices in the US and to weights and measures in a grocery store.  So, that 20oz Soda (not a proper british pint of beer) shows up as 1.25 pints (US measure) and 501ml in metric.  Just to clarify.  A US pint is 16 US fluid ounces.  (not british fluid ounces)  16 X1.25 = 20; hence a 20 fluid oz soda is 1.25 pints in the US.

You should perhaps go back to post 432, print it out and take it to your ESL class for parsing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep dodging and weaving.

the point - which you are and were missing - is the pound is defined as a fraction of a kg. it's just typical conservatives clinging to someone random point in the past and pretending it was what it wasn't. oh well, c'est la vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Keep dodging and weaving.

It's a relativity thing.

I can stand here watching you run in ever decreasing circles.  You think I'm the one that's moving until you suddenly discover your head is up your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chinabald said:

Joy Behar on the View said the Dems lost Senate seats partly due to Gerrymandering. 

Surely that is a blonde joke...…….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Republicans won 50.3 percent of NC’s votes for Congress. They took 10 of 13 seats.


Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article221282920.html

(R) got 40% of the NJ vote for the house, yet they only won 1 seat.. of 12.

(R) in CT got ~40% of the vote.. and 0 seats

It goes both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

(R) got 40% of the NJ vote for the house, yet they only won 1 seat.. of 12.

(R) in CT got ~40% of the vote.. and 0 seats

It goes both ways.

And it's wrong both ways.  The only thing that gerrymandering accomplishes is by creating voter apathy. Why bother when your vote is either not needed or doesn't matter.  Which is much appreciated by those who fund the campaigns, keep it nice and simple for the ROI.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

(R) got 40% of the NJ vote for the house, yet they only won 1 seat.. of 12.

(R) in CT got ~40% of the vote.. and 0 seats

It goes both ways.

Big difference between ~40% and ~50%. Your argument holds no water.

 NJ and CT aren't too bad map wise -

520F84BB-687B-4C2C-934A-F03FB6F6AFE3-1434-000001038CBEADC8.png

725A7C5D-0694-4450-BAC2-85AE88DD026A-1434-000001059CAC3DCE.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

It's a relativity thing.

I can stand here watching you run in ever decreasing circles.  You think I'm the one that's moving until you suddenly discover your head is up your ass.

Both of us are stupid. Only one knows it.

watching you shit all over all you've ever done is a great source of amusement though. keep going grandpa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Grrr... said:

You want equal population, but you also want the same amount of likely repubs and dems in each area where possible.

Do you?

Suppose population has grown in an area and what was one district must become two.

There's a river running east to west and TeamR types mostly live on the S side, while TeamD types prefer the N side.

Do you make the river the line? Politicians would like it, but so might voters.

Or do you draw a N to S line and make two divided districts?

As a TeamD voter on the N side, now you're guaranteed a watered-down candidate who doesn't really reflect your views. The poor TeamR voters will get another darn RINO.

Ignoring what the politicians want, are these happy voters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 7:02 AM, Saorsa said:

Who appoints the commissions?

 

There are ways to do this very fairly - basically using similar software to what the GOP (and to a lesser extent the DNC, due to them A) having fewer opportunities, and B ) less sophisticated software) but applying it to the common good istead of gaming elections:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mathematicians-who-want-to-save-democracy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

There are ways to do this very fairly - basically using similar software to what the GOP (and to a lesser extent the DNC, due to them A) having fewer opportunities, and B) less sophisticated software) but applying it to the common good istead of gaming elections:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mathematicians-who-want-to-save-democracy/

good reading, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/5/2018 at 2:44 PM, dogballs Tom said:

.

What is the lie you're complaining about?

You don't believe both halves of the Duopoly try to pack districts to their advantage or something? They do.

What's your basis for supposing I like voter suppression? Or are you just an asshole?

The lie - that you are promulgating over and over in this thread - is that 'safe seats' are exclusively created by gerrymandering. In fact, a seat could be considered 'safe' for any one (or a combination thereof) of multiple reasons. So when you try to conflate the relative numbers of 'safe seats' with the efficacy of one or the other team's gerrymandering, ("They gerrymandered up more safe seats for TeamD than they did for TeamR! Must be tired of winning. Or maybe both halves of the Duopoly do this?") you are being disingenuous at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

 

The lie - that you are promulgating over and over in this thread - is that 'safe seats' are exclusively created by gerrymandering. In fact, a seat could be considered 'safe' for any one (or a combination thereof) of multiple reasons. So when you try to conflate the relative numbers of 'safe seats' with the efficacy of one or the other team's gerrymandering, ("They gerrymandered up more safe seats for TeamD than they did for TeamR! Must be tired of winning. Or maybe both halves of the Duopoly do this?") you are being disingenuous at best.

I thought I was being sarcastic.

44 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

There are ways to do this very fairly - basically using similar software to what the GOP (and to a lesser extent the DNC, due to them A) having fewer opportunities, and B ) less sophisticated software) but applying it to the common good istead of gaming elections:

And pointing out that both teams do this, as you just did.

Post 73 discusses why grouping like voters together might be a good thing, though it's usually associated with what we call gerrymandering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 11:41 PM, dogballs Tom said:

I thought I was being sarcastic.

And pointing out that both teams do this, as you just did.

Post 73 discusses why grouping like voters together might be a good thing, though it's usually associated with what we call gerrymandering.

On a state level, any result that significantly diverges from the will of actual electorate is anti-democracy and directly results in discrimination and injustice. Unlike the electoral college which - rightly or wrongly - is designed for a specific purpose, there are no mitigating factors with regards to our representatives. 

Here's another point often overlooked by the 'team' R people who presently don't have an issue with  The GOP's big lead in governorships (28) and state legislatures, plus a few of their technology partnerships (data driven gerrymandering is exponentially more effective than anything in the past) have made them clear leaders in a disproportionate number of races. Great if you're a republican, right? Not so fast - because in these scenarios, your candidates can literally not only give ZERO consideration to serving nearly 50% of their district, but - since the only competitive race  is the primary, you end up with far more extremist candidates. For anyone who whines about how 'divided' this country is, I would suggest that the current huge number of gerrymandered races are a (if not the) primary cause, and that division has demonstrably accelerated since the neutering of the voting rights act. Never mind the fact that a large number of representatives are repellent, incompetent morons - the GOP wasn't always anti science, anti justice, etc ad nauseam.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, an easy solution to gerrymandering would be proportional representation. It has the detrimental property of being fair. Even Fakebertarians would get representation according to their votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfsailor said:

On a state level, any result that significantly diverges from the will of actual electorate is anti-democracy and directly results in discrimination and injustice. Unlike the electoral college which - rightly or wrongly - is designed for a specific purpose, there are no mitigating factors with regards to our representatives. 

Here's another point often overlooked by the 'team' R people who presently don't have an issue with  The GOP's big lead in governorships (28) and state legislatures, plus a few of their technology partnerships (data driven gerrymandering is exponentially more effective than anything in the past) have made them clear leaders in a disproportionate number of races. Great if you're a republican, right? Not so fast - because in these scenarios, your candidates can literally not only give ZERO consideration to serving nearly 50% of their district, but - since the only competitive race  is the primary, you end up with far more extremist candidates. For anyone who whines about how 'divided' this country is, I would suggest that the current huge number of gerrymandered races are a (if not the) primary cause, and that division has demonstrably accelerated since the neutering of the voting rights act. Never mind the fact that a large number of representatives are repellent, incompetent morons - the GOP wasn't always anti science, anti justice, etc ad nauseam.

 

R Governors are elected because 9f gerrymandering? Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, warbird said:

R Governors are elected because 9f gerrymandering? Who knew?

No - the R governors and legislatures have enabled an unprecedented level of gerrymandering. But I see that what I posted was unclear, because a word is missing. Itr should have read:

Here's another point often overlooked by the 'team' R people who presently don't have an issue with the current status quo:  The GOP's big lead in governorships (28) and state legislatures, plus a few of their technology partnerships (data driven gerrymandering is exponentially more effective than anything in the past) have made them clear leaders in a disproportionate number of races. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfsailor said:

No - the R governors and legislatures have enabled an unprecedented level of gerrymandering. But I see that what I posted was unclear, because a word is missing. Itr should have read:

Here's another point often overlooked by the 'team' R people who presently don't have an issue with the current status quo:  The GOP's big lead in governorships (28) and state legislatures, plus a few of their technology partnerships (data driven gerrymandering is exponentially more effective than anything in the past) have made them clear leaders in a disproportionate number of races. 

The fairest non partisan way to draw districts that I have seen came up in the Pennsylvania thread. Divide the state by population with the shortest straight line, border to border.  Divide each half, quarter, eighth etc.  That totally non partisan way would still give Rs an edge because lefties seem to congregate in the population centers. The blue coasts and red heartland prove my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

The fairest non partisan way to draw districts that I have seen came up in the Pennsylvania thread. Divide the state by population with the shortest straight line, border to border.  Divide each half, quarter, eighth etc.  That totally non partisan way would still give Rs an edge because lefties seem to congregate in the population centers. The blue coasts and red heartland prove my point.

That's not fair at all, since it doesn't take population density into account - people in rural areas would have massively more political power on a per capita basis. Each district needs to have a similar population AND be part of a reasonable map that makes geographic/geometric sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfsailor said:

That's not fair at all, since it doesn't take population density into account - people in rural areas would have massively more political power on a per capita basis. Each district needs to have a similar population AND be part of a reasonable map that makes geographic/geometric sense.

I was reading something the other day that stated that 50% of the senators represent 20% of the population. That's the Red Zone. Yet that 20% wants more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I was reading something the other day that stated that 50% of the senators represent 20% of the population. That's the Red Zone. Yet that 20% wants more. 

 

3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I was reading something the other day that stated that 50% of the senators represent 20% of the population. That's the Red Zone. Yet that 20% wants more. 

What I've seen is that 20 senators represent 50% of the population living in mostly urban states.  80 Senators represent 50% of the population living in mostly rural states.  

One doesn't cancel out the other.  What you read may also be true.  A deep rural bias to the senate in either case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, surfsailor said:

That's not fair at all, since it doesn't take population density into account - people in rural areas would have massively more political power on a per capita basis. Each district needs to have a similar population AND be part of a reasonable map that makes geographic/geometric sense.

It is entirely fair. Split Wisconsin as an example.  The first line goes east/west through Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) counties. The second and third lines split southern WI nearer Milwaukee to the IL state line south bypopulation and north east and northwest WI to the north by population. On and on. Ultimately, the population centers have small, densely populated left leaning districts and rural areas have large sparsely populated districts, each with even population counts..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I was reading something the other day that stated that 50% of the senators represent 20% of the population. That's the Red Zone. Yet that 20% wants more. 

The Red States have ~70 of the opiate abuse problem, lower education, higher infant mortality, lower per-capita income, and higher Fed subsidy (which obviously does not go to anything useful like health care..... or dental care, come to think of it).

This is what they get with their greater representation and their direct Twitter connection to President Two-Scoops.

Next time they want to secede, I say, let 'em.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I was reading something the other day that stated that 50% of the senators represent 20% of the population. That's the Red Zone. Yet that 20% wants more. 

Senators represent states not a population count.  The house of representatives are supposed to take care of that but population growth without a concurrent growth in the count of representatives has made districts too populace to have a meaningful consensus.

Having a greater number of districts would also minimize the gerrymandering issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites