Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-22-2019, 01:31 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385

Letís not be too eager to abolish gerrymandering


While mindful of the importance of not counting our chicks before they hatch, we do need to think ahead for different contingencies. There are signs that 2020 could be a very big year for Democrats up and down the ballot. If thatís true, itís quite likely to lead to a political correction in 2022 just like we saw in 2010.

But the election of 2022 will be held under new redistricting maps drawn by the state legislators who win in 2020. They may be operating from the highest water mark Democrats have seen or will see for some time. As I see it, that is a golden opportunity for us to gerrymander the shit out of a number of states, which might allow us to survive a 2022 backlash and hold onto the House, even if only narrowly.

But with the energy being pushed into anti-gerrymandering legislative and court battles by progressives, we may find ourselves having thrown the GOP a lifeline just when they will need it. So Iím not really arguing for gerrymandering on philosophical terms (thatís an impossible lift), but just based on raw,, down-and-dirty bareknuckle political terms. Letís look before we leap here, is all Iím saying.
  #2  
Old 06-22-2019, 02:53 AM
penultima thule is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,080
That’d be right ... rather than tasking an independent statutory authority to determine electoral boundaries when there are ample precedents around the globe eg https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/R...ions/index.htm
... the US prefers to have the political equivalent of two alcoholics fight over who gets the keys to the liquor cabinet.
  #3  
Old 06-22-2019, 08:16 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,787
If we don't abolish gerrymandering when we can, then we'll be wishing come next cycle that we did. We need to fix the system, not just break it in the opposite direction.
  #4  
Old 06-22-2019, 08:18 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,635
I'm not in favor of ending gerrymandering because it's anti-Democratic party, I'm in favor of it because it's anti-democratic.
  #5  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:27 AM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
At least 83% of Democrats in my state disagree with you.
  #6  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:31 AM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,894
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.
  #7  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:32 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
And they are letting idealism override common sense. No gerrymandering reform will change the unfairness of the Senate. Maximal House gerrymandering would only tip the scales partway back.
  #8  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:41 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If we don't abolish gerrymandering when we can, then we'll be wishing come next cycle that we did. We need to fix the system, not just break it in the opposite direction.
this

And also
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I'm not in favor of ending gerrymandering because it's anti-Democratic party, I'm in favor of it because it's anti-democratic.
  #9  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:04 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And they are letting idealism override common sense. No gerrymandering reform will change the unfairness of the Senate. Maximal House gerrymandering would only tip the scales partway back.
Allowing gerrymandering won't change the unfairness of the Senate, either. The unfairness of the Senate is the entire point of allocating Senators in the fashion of what we do: so that a handful of high-population states don't run the whole country, which is also unfair in a different fashion.

House gerrymandering defeats the intended purpose of the House. State district gerrymandering also screws up representation in State legislatures. Which party is on top at the moment isn't why to get rid of it. Effectiveness of the electoral process and faith in the electoral process are why to get rid of it. And we should.
  #10  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:10 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,161
Yeah, fuck that noise.

Gerrymandering is wrong because it thwarts the will of the people not because it thwarts the will of a particular political party.
  #11  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:22 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,143
Whatever flaws there may be in the U.S. Senate--and American federalism in general--party operatives can't use sophisticated computer programs to re-draw state lines on a block-by-block level to give their side the most favorable possible electorate. U.S. Senators are chosen by their constituents; they don't get to choose their voters. This is pretty fundamental to a democratic republic. If, say, New Hampshire switches from being dominated by "rock-ribbed New England conservatism" and being a stronghold of the Republican Party, to being the sort of state which elects two Democratic Senators, two Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives, and Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature, well, that's just the way it is. It's up to the Republicans to figure out how to appeal to the people of New Hampshire; they can't gerrymander New Hampshire into some new and twisted shape.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #12  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:28 AM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
While mindful of the importance of not counting our chicks before they hatch, we do need to think ahead for different contingencies. There are signs that 2020 could be a very big year for Democrats up and down the ballot. If thatís true, itís quite likely to lead to a political correction in 2022 just like we saw in 2010.
Very probably.

Quote:
As I see it, that is a golden opportunity for us to gerrymander the shit out of a number of states, which might allow us to survive a 2022 backlash and hold onto the House, even if only narrowly.
I hope you're joking? For discussion, I have to assume you're not, because there are really people who think this way - like Mitch McConne - but there's a reason I wouldn't piss on him to put out a fire and plan on dancing on his grave the moment he croaks.

In fact, if he was shot tomorrow, I think I'd have to suppress a giddy laugh.

Are you thinking like Mitch McConnel? Because if you are, you might have gathered what I think about your proposal here.

Hypocrisy means one is just as guilty as those one criticizes, but also a disgusting hypocrite on top of that. I question the universal value of human life when it comes to blazon hypocrites.
  #13  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:50 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Tell me what you really think! Don’t hold back, now.

I am definitely not joking, BTW. I just hope the Democrats in governors’ mansions and statehouses in 2021 are not so naive. Politics ain’t beanbag, folks.

ETA: I do not think “hypocrisy” means what you think it means.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-22-2019 at 10:53 AM.
  #14  
Old 06-22-2019, 11:28 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,787
Without gerrymandering, Democrats have a small but real edge. And if the Republicans wanted to compete with that, they'd have to become more reasonable.

With gerrymandering, we would swing wildly between Democrats having a big edge and Republicans having a big edge, and there'd be every motive for both sides to become less reasonable. And it's easier to destroy than it is to create.
  #15  
Old 06-22-2019, 11:56 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Yeah, fuck that noise.

Gerrymandering is wrong because it thwarts the will of the people not because it thwarts the will of a particular political party.
This. I'm a small-d democrat and always have been, regardless of party affiliation. The people should get to choose their representatives, not the other way around.

And thinking about it tactically, it's still a loser. Gerrymandering in your own favor makes you more, not less, vulnerable to a wave election.
  #16  
Old 06-22-2019, 12:29 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
While mindful of the importance of not counting our chicks before they hatch, we do need to think ahead for different contingencies. There are signs that 2020 could be a very big year for Democrats up and down the ballot. If thatís true, itís quite likely to lead to a political correction in 2022 just like we saw in 2010.

But the election of 2022 will be held under new redistricting maps drawn by the state legislators who win in 2020. They may be operating from the highest water mark Democrats have seen or will see for some time. As I see it, that is a golden opportunity for us to gerrymander the shit out of a number of states, which might allow us to survive a 2022 backlash and hold onto the House, even if only narrowly.

But with the energy being pushed into anti-gerrymandering legislative and court battles by progressives, we may find ourselves having thrown the GOP a lifeline just when they will need it. So Iím not really arguing for gerrymandering on philosophical terms (thatís an impossible lift), but just based on raw,, down-and-dirty bareknuckle political terms. Letís look before we leap here, is all Iím saying.
Thank-you for finally posting a statement that I can point to every time someone on this board asserts that it is only the Republicans who are politically opportunist in what they do.

Of course, for what it is worth, so far no one agrees with you, so that's a good thing...
  #17  
Old 06-22-2019, 12:39 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,317
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the natural end result of "vote blue no matter who."
  #18  
Old 06-22-2019, 03:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Thank-you for finally posting a statement that I can point to every time someone on this board asserts that it is only the Republicans who are politically opportunist in what they do.

Of course, for what it is worth, so far no one agrees with you, so that's a good thing...
Well, no posters as of yet do. The Maryland Legislature is on board with it.
  #19  
Old 06-22-2019, 03:38 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Thank-you for finally posting a statement that I can point to every time someone on this board asserts that it is only the Republicans who are politically opportunist in what they do.
How often does it happen that people say this, in a way that is rebutted by some rando on the board whose posts are nearly always repudiated by other Democrats?

Yeah, Slacker loves posting these absurd, ill-considered threads that show zero foresight, and then insisting that the only reason anyone could disagree with him is that they're naive and idealistic. So what? He's gonna keep doing that, and he's gonna keep ignoring the substantive issues with his terrible proposals, and the world's gonna keep on turning.
  #20  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Good for the Maryland legislature. Funny how the actual professionals seem to have a different idea of what is “absurd”.
  #21  
Old 06-22-2019, 06:11 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,529
I would recommend the OP watch this video on gerrymandering. Unfortunately, the links at the end don't work, due to YouTube removing notifications. But you can still find the videos pretty easily on the guy's channel. It'll give you a full idea of what the problem is.

BTW, the independent council method isn't necessarily the best, because it's possible for the council to not be so independent. But it's better than any bipartisan solution, which will result in keeping the incumbents in power. A better solution is using math with an open algorithm. (It may be off by accident, but it will only be off randomly, not in any one side's favor. So it will statistically balance out.)

And the most accurate results are actually gathered through reverse gerrymandering. Just hire someone to gerrymander the districts so that they match the preferences of the voters at large. This works perfectly assuming you have perfect data on which side has the political data.

Or you can just get rid of first past the post voting and have ranked voting, using an instant runoff method. But he covers that in a different video.
  #22  
Old 06-22-2019, 07:53 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,936
I've nothimg against gerrymandering because I'm one block into Peter Roskam (R)'s distrtrict.4
  #23  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I would recommend the OP watch this video on gerrymandering. Unfortunately, the links at the end don't work, due to YouTube removing notifications. But you can still find the videos pretty easily on the guy's channel. It'll give you a full idea of what the problem is.

I doubt it will be as full as the complete 538 series on the topic from a year or two ago, or the many articles I have read, which go into detail on the lawsuits in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the controversy over the independent commission in Arizona, the many decades that Thomas Hofeller spent refining his methods, etc., etc. Sorry, man: it's just not a case of "if he just knows the information, he'll see the light". I know all about it, and I disagree with you. It happens!

ETA: I do like ranked choice voting, but not straight up IRV which has weird effects. No voting method is immune to perverse outcomes or gaming the system.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-22-2019 at 09:19 PM.
  #24  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:25 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
I've nothimg against gerrymandering because I'm one block into Peter Roskam (R)'s distrtrict.
er...One block either way from. Go Raja!

Last edited by dropzone; 06-23-2019 at 03:29 AM.
  #25  
Old 06-23-2019, 06:13 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Tell me what you really think! Donít hold back, now.

I am definitely not joking, BTW. I just hope the Democrats in governorsí mansions and statehouses in 2021 are not so naive. Politics ainít beanbag, folks.
Politics definitely ain't beanbag. So you ain't-beanbag it in ways that take on the power of the other party. You don't ain't-beanbag it by taking aim at the voters themselves. And that's what gerrymandering does.

I'm good with not-beanbagging politics in all sorts of ways. Impeachment. Killing the filibuster. Statehood for DC, and PR if its residents want it. Increasing the number of Justices. Passing voting rights laws that outlaw, in Congressional elections at least, all of the manifold tricks that Republicans use to exclude likely Dems from voting.

What all these not-beanbag things have in common is that none of them work to the detriment of the people themselves. To me, that's a really important distinction. YMMV, and apparently does.
  #26  
Old 06-23-2019, 08:48 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,265
I'd prefer Democrats use a majority to make the system as genuinely representative as possible and then enact laws that prevent it from becoming unrepresentative again.
  #27  
Old 06-24-2019, 08:42 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
My first goal is to abolish gerrymandering on a national level for both national and state politics.

If that cannot be done, then I agree with OP. We democrats need to gerrymander the hell out of whatever we can.

One reason this is a good idea (aside from the obvious) is that it'll motivate conservative politicians and conservative judges to abolish gerrymandering. If the democrats bring a knife to a gunfight, then conservative politicians and conservative judges will have no incentive to ban guns (as a metaphor). But if the democrats bring their own guns and conservatives start to suffer casualties then they'll be more open to stopping that tactic.

Basically unless conservatives start to feel the pain of gerrymandering they will have no incentive to abolish it. As long as conservatives benefit from but never suffer from gerrymandering they'll have no incentive to oppose it.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-24-2019 at 08:43 AM.
  #28  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:02 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, no posters as of yet do. The Maryland Legislature is on board with it.
Yes, one often finds that politicians are all for systems that work out in their own favor regardless of whether it represents the overall will of the people. Thank you for providing another example of why gerrymandering is bad.
  #29  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:27 PM
penultima thule is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Or you can just get rid of first past the post voting and have ranked voting, using an instant runoff method.
I don't see why IRV in an electorate is any form of solution to gerrymandering of the district IRV is applied in.

Joh Bjelke-Petersen's Bjelkemander in Queensland in the 70s, though technically more a case of malapportionment.

Now if you are talking proportional representation, ie each state becoming a single district with multi-members, that's a different approach.

I think you are better served by your representatives with IRV in non gerrymandered districts but YMOV.
  #30  
Old 06-24-2019, 11:31 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,589
Fixed link:

Bjelkmander
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #31  
Old 06-25-2019, 01:37 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
I've nothimg against gerrymandering because I'm one block into Peter Roskam (R)'s distrtrict.4
Um, Peter Roskam doesn't have a district.
  #32  
Old 06-25-2019, 02:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
The anti-gerrymandering folk seem unaware of how difficult it is to "draw districts fairly." Indeed the term has no clear meaning. One suggestion that's been made at SDMB is for purely random districting, e.g. based on the last two digits of SocSec number! (This is the way to ensure that a state with 51% Red overall and ten districts will have all ten be Red districts.)

Here's a specific example of why "fair districting" is an ambiguous term to start with:
The hypothetical state Trianglia is 60% Blue, 40% Red; it's shaped like a Triangle, is entitled to three members of Congress. Exactly one-third of the population lives in Triangle City which is 90% Blue. The rest of the state is a fairly uniform mixture of small-towns, suburbs and rural and is 55% Red, 45% Blue.

How should this state be divided into three districts?

Residents of Triangle City have common concerns so it may seem logical to make it one district, and split the rest of the state into two ex-urban districts. This will lead to one blue Congressman and two Red Congressmen. In a state that's 60% Blue.

OTOH, since Triangle City is at the center of the state, it would be easy to district so that each of three districts get 1/3 the City. Now there will be three Blue Congressmen, each winning comfortably 60-40.

Which is the "fair" way?
This is not just a "hypothetical" example. In fact the heavy concentration of Blue voters in Cities means the Reds get automatic gerrymandering for free! The Reds would still get more Congressional seats than their vote warrants even without "deliberate gerrymandering"!

The real solution is some system based on proportional representation. Lacking that, all we can hope is to pick the lesser of evils. Since, as shown in the example, the R's have a naturally gerrymandered advantage even without explicit cheating, I would consider it un-American and unpatriotic for the D's not to improve districting to offset such "natural gerrymandering" when they have the chance.
  #33  
Old 06-25-2019, 03:25 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The anti-gerrymandering folk seem unaware of how difficult it is to "draw districts fairly." Indeed the term has no clear meaning. One suggestion that's been made at SDMB is for purely random districting, e.g. based on the last two digits of SocSec number! (This is the way to ensure that a state with 51% Red overall and ten districts will have all ten be Red districts.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It is also difficult to make sand perform millions of computations per minute. Ergo, computers do not exist.

I do believe that the common recommendation is a non-partisan commission that draws the lines.
  #34  
Old 06-25-2019, 08:29 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
This is not just a "hypothetical" example. In fact the heavy concentration of Blue voters in Cities means the Reds get automatic gerrymandering for free! The Reds would still get more Congressional seats than their vote warrants even without "deliberate gerrymandering"!

The real solution is some system based on proportional representation. Lacking that, all we can hope is to pick the lesser of evils. Since, as shown in the example, the R's have a naturally gerrymandered advantage even without explicit cheating, I would consider it un-American and unpatriotic for the D's not to improve districting to offset such "natural gerrymandering" when they have the chance.
What's natural or automatic about drawing district boundaries along urban/rural lines? That we've all been told that for most of our lives is evidence of how pervasive gerrymandering is, not that it's natural or unavoidable. We could draw districts to be as geographically compact as possible (still with equal populations); make it as easy as possible to travel to your representative's office or town hall meeting.

Yes, let's be eager to end gerrymandering. Which side would benefit if we did? Americans.
  #35  
Old 06-25-2019, 08:56 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,787
Drawing districts to be as geographically compact as possible would, in fact, put the district boundaries along urban/rural lines. To use septimus' example of Trianglia, the most compact districting possible would be to draw a circle around Triangle City, of whatever radius is needed to encompass exactly a third of the state's population, with a line dividing the remainder into two parts.
  #36  
Old 06-25-2019, 09:24 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,338
Rather than nonpartisan commissions, I prefer semiarbitrary competition.

For example, you set up a way to score district maps. 50% of the score comes from an efficiency gap measure, and 50% of the score comes from a compactness measure. That's the semi-arbitrary part.

The competitive part is this: the party that won the most votes in the most recent election submits a map to a judge, who scores the map according to this semi-arbitrary, transparent measure. The party than won the second-most votes has one month (or whatever) to submit an alternative map. If their map scores at least 10% higher than the map submitted by the dominant party, theirs is the map used. If it does not, the dominant party's map is used.

I don't think there's any way to get venality out of the system. Nonpartisan map commissions are going to turn partisan over time. But a competitive system operating according to semi-arbitrary rules can turn that venality into a virtue, by encouraging people to create the best maps they can, out of fear that if they don't, their opponents will.
  #37  
Old 06-25-2019, 09:39 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Drawing districts to be as geographically compact as possible would, in fact, put the district boundaries along urban/rural lines. To use septimus' example of Trianglia, the most compact districting possible would be to draw a circle around Triangle City, of whatever radius is needed to encompass exactly a third of the state's population, with a line dividing the remainder into two parts.
That would give you one small district and two very large ones. Carving out one (or a few) districts by party (or urbanity, or whatever) and then saying "and we'll just divide up whatever territory is left over" is pretty much the definition of gerrymandering.

One small district and two large ones is not compact. The large districts count, too.
  #38  
Old 06-25-2019, 10:30 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,169
If the city in Trianglia has a large enough population relative to the rural areas, while separating out the city and dividing the rest would give one geographically small area and two geographically large ones, it would also give one large population area and two small population areas. The one thing that's relatively clear about the situation is that you can't do that; districts need to be similar in population.

An additional issue is that the interests of the city may be genuinely different in some areas from the interests of the rural areas. The city, for instance, has an interest in spending money on public transportation within the city and very little interest in spending it on back roads in the rural areas, while the rural areas have an interest in keeping all those back roads in decent shape and, partly because in order to get to the city they probably have to drive anyway and partly because they may not go to the city often, little interest in paying for the city's subway system. The city has little obvious interest in paying for health clinics in the far corners of rural areas, while those living in those corners have a strong interest in not having to travel all the way to the city for health care when they're already feeling terrible, and in not having to travel all the way to the city to support an ill family member/friend who's in need of such care. Et cetera. If districts each contain a chunk of city and a chunk of rural area, and the populations of each are relatively similar, then some attention will be paid to everyone's issues because representatives will need to attract some of each group; if districts are separated by city and rural areas then there will be representatives of each set of interests in the legislative body; but if districts each contain a chunk of city and a chunk of rural area but in each or most cases the relative balance of city and rural residents in the district is strongly unbalanced in the same direction (say if each of three districts is 75% city dwellers and 25% rural dwellers), then one set of interests is likely to be ignored entirely.

So no, it's not perfectly simple to draw the district lines. What is however entirely clear is that drawing them in order to strongly favor one political party goes against other reasons for drawing the lines in particular locations. Its entire intention is to have the result be that one set of interests can be ignored entirely.
  #39  
Old 06-25-2019, 11:33 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The anti-gerrymandering folk seem unaware of how difficult it is to "draw districts fairly." Indeed the term has no clear meaning. One suggestion that's been made at SDMB is for purely random districting, e.g. based on the last two digits of SocSec number! (This is the way to ensure that a state with 51% Red overall and ten districts will have all ten be Red districts.)

Here's a specific example of why "fair districting" is an ambiguous term to start with:
The hypothetical state Trianglia is 60% Blue, 40% Red; it's shaped like a Triangle, is entitled to three members of Congress. Exactly one-third of the population lives in Triangle City which is 90% Blue. The rest of the state is a fairly uniform mixture of small-towns, suburbs and rural and is 55% Red, 45% Blue.

How should this state be divided into three districts?

Residents of Triangle City have common concerns so it may seem logical to make it one district, and split the rest of the state into two ex-urban districts. This will lead to one blue Congressman and two Red Congressmen. In a state that's 60% Blue.

OTOH, since Triangle City is at the center of the state, it would be easy to district so that each of three districts get 1/3 the City. Now there will be three Blue Congressmen, each winning comfortably 60-40.

Which is the "fair" way?
This is not just a "hypothetical" example. In fact the heavy concentration of Blue voters in Cities means the Reds get automatic gerrymandering for free! The Reds would still get more Congressional seats than their vote warrants even without "deliberate gerrymandering"!

The real solution is some system based on proportional representation. Lacking that, all we can hope is to pick the lesser of evils. Since, as shown in the example, the R's have a naturally gerrymandered advantage even without explicit cheating, I would consider it un-American and unpatriotic for the D's not to improve districting to offset such "natural gerrymandering" when they have the chance.
Why can't you just draw district's to reduce the efficiency gap?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #40  
Old 06-25-2019, 11:47 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 44,565
How do you avoid political finagling in drawing districts?

It's not as if this is an arcane issue. The rest of the world manages to do it without these party fights:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.477f75db67fb

https://boundarycommissionforengland...v.uk/about-us/
__________________
Who is the Calypso Singer that rides Pegasus?
Harry Bellerophonte
  #41  
Old 06-25-2019, 01:01 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,787
But one small district and two large ones is in fact more compact than three largeish ones. The compactness of a geometric shape is the ratio of its area to its perimeter. The total area of a state is fixed, so the most compact map will be the one with the shortest boundary lengths. Which rewards drawing the tightest boundary possible around a group of people.
  #42  
Old 06-25-2019, 01:27 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,161
Draw the lines of Trianglia so that the median district's partisan lean is the same as the mean district's partisan lean. You may end up with three red districts or three blue districts once in a while as partisan lean shifts, but you will never end up with the majority of voters voting one way and the majority of the seats going the other way.

In the Virginia House of delegates election in 2017 the median seat was dead even (decided by a drawing of lots). The mean seat was D+10 (1,075,206 R votes to 1,306,384 D votes statewide).

Similar things have happened in MI, WI, PA and NC (and possibly other states).

This should be the focus of anti-Gerrymandering efforts (it isn't). The median district should be representative of the state as a whole and efforts should be made to draw lines that satisfy this criterion.
  #43  
Old 06-25-2019, 02:28 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Draw the lines of Trianglia so that the median district's partisan lean is the same as the mean district's partisan lean. You may end up with three red districts or three blue districts once in a while as partisan lean shifts, but you will never end up with the majority of voters voting one way and the majority of the seats going the other way.

In the Virginia House of delegates election in 2017 the median seat was dead even (decided by a drawing of lots). The mean seat was D+10 (1,075,206 R votes to 1,306,384 D votes statewide).

Similar things have happened in MI, WI, PA and NC (and possibly other states).
This sounds like a good simple way to detect most blatant gerrymandering, but it doesn't wholly solve the problem: You could still have a state that's 55% Red elect up to 100% Red Congressmen. On top of which, it might seem like a strange technical constraint to those drawing up the districts.

What all this discussion points to is that: Drawing districts is fraught with problems; Proportional representation would be much better.

Single-seat districts are defended as serving an Ombudsman purpose. In fact, that ombudsmanship role in Congress is often exercised corruptly; proportional seats might serve the role better — someone who campaigned for votes statewide from a specific group might serve their interests better. (Or a completely different mechanism might be developed to serve an ombudsman function.)

Last edited by septimus; 06-25-2019 at 02:29 PM.
  #44  
Old 06-25-2019, 03:07 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
This sounds like a good simple way to detect most blatant gerrymandering, but it doesn't wholly solve the problem: You could still have a state that's 55% Red elect up to 100% Red Congressmen. On top of which, it might seem like a strange technical constraint to those drawing up the districts.
For example... we can look at the Cook Partisan Voting Index of every congressional district and compute the skew of state's congressional district map to see which states are the most Gerrymandered by this metric. Here we will define skew as the difference in partisan lean between the mean district and the median district.

Here are the worst twelve:
Missouri R+7.750000
TennesseeR +7.333333
New York R+6.259259
Wisconsin R+ 6.250000
Louisiana R+6.000000
Mississippi R+5.500000
Michigan R+5.428571
North Carolina R+4.692308
Texas R+4.500000
Oregon R+4.400000
Ohio R+4.312500
New Jersey R+4.083333

It's not until number 13, New Mexico, where we see a D skew.

Overall there are 28 states skewed R, 10 states skewed D, and 12 states with less than 3 CD's that can't be skewed.

Maryland, the poster child for the, "But they do it too," crowd, is skewed D+1. Similar to Pennsylvania's R+1 with their court ordered new(ish) district maps.

I say fix this first and then see if the other problems you mention arise.
  #45  
Old 06-25-2019, 04:21 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,161
Also... here's the skew of the four states where the median district is of a different party than the mean district.

Wisconsin R+6.250000
Michigan R+5.428571
Minnesota R+3.750000
Virginia R+3.727273

Four for four Republican. It's not really a both sides issue.
  #46  
Old 06-25-2019, 05:24 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,962
nm

Last edited by Buck Godot; 06-25-2019 at 05:25 PM. Reason: time to short for edit
  #47  
Old 06-25-2019, 10:06 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,787
Quote:
Quoth Lance Turbo:

In the Virginia House of delegates election in 2017 the median seat was dead even (decided by a drawing of lots).
Nitpick: It wasn't decided by drawing of lots. It was decided by the Republicans saying that they had drawn lots, and then declaring themselves the winners.
  #48  
Old 06-25-2019, 10:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
I'm glad to see the discussion has become more balanced while I was gone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
My first goal is to abolish gerrymandering on a national level for both national and state politics.

If that cannot be done, then I agree with OP. We democrats need to gerrymander the hell out of whatever we can.

One reason this is a good idea (aside from the obvious) is that it'll motivate conservative politicians and conservative judges to abolish gerrymandering. If the democrats bring a knife to a gunfight, then conservative politicians and conservative judges will have no incentive to ban guns (as a metaphor). But if the democrats bring their own guns and conservatives start to suffer casualties then they'll be more open to stopping that tactic.

Basically unless conservatives start to feel the pain of gerrymandering they will have no incentive to abolish it. As long as conservatives benefit from but never suffer from gerrymandering they'll have no incentive to oppose it.

Indeed.

For those who staunchly oppose gerrymandering: would you really support outlawing it within your blue state, even if all the red states were continuing merrily apace? That is the very definition of unilateral disarmament, which by turn is the very definition of Bad Idea Jeans.
  #49  
Old 06-25-2019, 10:38 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

For those who staunchly oppose gerrymandering: would you really support outlawing it within your blue state, even if all the red states were continuing merrily apace?
It's already outlawed in my very blue state, which has just gotten bluer. The efficacy of the new method used( citizen commission ) is arguable, but it hasn't done the Republicans any great favors.
  #50  
Old 06-26-2019, 05:54 AM
Kimera757 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm glad to see the discussion has become more balanced while I was gone.





Indeed.

For those who staunchly oppose gerrymandering: would you really support outlawing it within your blue state, even if all the red states were continuing merrily apace? That is the very definition of unilateral disarmament, which by turn is the very definition of Bad Idea Jeans.
In Canada, election rules are determined by a federal organization, not by subnational units. In the US, the problem has to be solved 50 times. I don't see why states should have any impact on federal election rules.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017