Thanks Lord Feldon. What is the best way to determine such issues then?
Cite for this extraordinary claim?
Are you being disingenuous, or do you really know that little about how redistricting works?
(Emphasis mine in the following.)
http://www.wral.com/us-supreme-court-to-draw-lines-on-nc-gerrymandering-case/16297884/ First paragraph:
Michigan has serious gerrymandering issues. This is a recurring theme in nearly every state where the state legislature is controlled by the GOP.
“The same scenario played out in the Congressional races in 2014. Democratic candidates received 50,000 more votes that year, but Republicans sent nine representatives to Washington, D.C. while Dems sent five. Republican candidates edged Dems in the 2016 Congressional races, but are again sending four more representatives to Washington.”
Johnny Ace,
Here’s what YOU said.
Redistricting does no such thing. The Legislators don’t sit around saying OK, House District #1 will have 20,000 Republicans and 17,000 Democrats.
Even if that were Constitutional, it would be impossible. Generally, redistricting only happens after the census every ten years. People move, die, turn 18, become citizens, etc. The voting rolls change from month to month.
And in General Elections, no state requires one to state for which party they are going to vote before being handed a secret ballot.
So again, how are Legislators “determining the number of voters of each party in each district”?
YOU made that claim; please back it up.
I’ve added numbers (1, 2, 3) to the following so I can address it point by point.
:smack: Johnny Ace’s comment was a very appropriate answer here:
I’ll assume that you, indeed, have trouble grasping essentials. I’ll review them for you.
(1) Individual legislators may or may not do this. But Republican-allied organizations certainly do hire accountant types and computer programmers who do precisely this. This was cited upthread.
(2) In the absence of major upheaval (e.g. the flooding of New Orleans), unexpected demographic changes over a ten-year period will not be too large. In your example, (“House District #1 will have 20,000 Republicans and 17,000 Democrats”), it will not be crippling to the gerrymanderers if this switches to 19,500 to 17,500. As to whether it is “constitutional”: some of the gerrymandering has been ordered undone by federal judges, again cited upthread. Or is it your claim that judges have reversed all cases of “unconstitutional” gerrymandering?
(3) Individual ballots are secret, but precinct totals are not. When gerrymanders are designed, the district lines are not plotted house-by-house, but only down to the precinct level.
Hope this helps.
Just a passing curiousity, do you believe that there are no Democrat-allied organizations hiring accountants and computer programmers to do this for their side?
With the GOP controlling most legislatures, those hypothetical hirees are probably looking for a new job!
I daresay neither of us knows a comprehensive answer to your question. I refer you to the article (linked upthread) by Sam Wang who has studied that question.
I don’t think my question was asking for a “comprehensive” answer. I’m not asking if there are more Dems or Reps doing it. I want to know if you believe there are any Dems doing it. That seems like a pretty simple question with a fairly obvious answer. After all, the GOP may control most legislatures, but they don’t control all of them.
You mean the same Sam Wang who ate a bug because he was wrong about the last election? :smack:
Not quite true. There are few if any Congressional districts where the Republicans consistently get more than 75% of the vote, but there are many districts where the Democrats routinely hit 90%.
Maybe he didn’t study the election 
I suppose there are Democrats who would sell their sisters into slavery if it would give them an electoral edge. And there are Republicans who would no more stoop to trickery than St. Joseph the Chaste would.
But a percentage bettor would bet the opposite way! One party has demonstrated time and time again in recent years, that it will put partisan advantage ahead of “fair play” much more than the other party.
One can view this either as a feature or as a fault. If a politician is convinced that he knows what is best for the country, he may say the “ends justify the means” and be happy to bend the rules if it advances his party’s cause. I do not even object to this in principle — I just do not believe GOP policies are good for the country. Today’s Democratic Party has a much stronger moral compass, IMO, giving them an electoral handicap.
… But do be sure to ridicule Sam Wang, if it suits your partisan purpose, rather than bothering to click his article. :rolleyes:
And there you go again, with your italicized “any”, implying that if a single Democrat takes some unfair action, that excuses a multitude of Republicans doing the same thing.
Does this seem intellectually honest? Do you see that such rhetoric is an example of the very difference in moral and intellectual outlook between the two parties that I just alluded to in preceding post?
Thing Fish wrote: “Not quite true. There are few if any Congressional districts where the Republicans consistently get more than 75% of the vote, but there are many districts where the Democrats routinely hit 90%.”
The idea is to cut your own margin of victory down to the level where it is as small as possible but still a reliable win. And breaking up a smaller city and putting its (Democratic) voters into multiple districts doesn’t make the surrounding areas any less Republican. And take a gander at Michigan’s Ninth district.
.tif)
Why would I click on his “article”, when he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
What tripe — and more evidence for my point about the intellectual honesty of right-wingers.
By this criterion, you’d ignore almost every Republican who ever vocalized an intelligible sentence. As well as Galileo Galilei who erroneously thought that a circular arc was a tautochrone.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Shall we have a quiz on redistricting now?
Yes, let’s.
Does the legislature determine the number of voters in each party in each district?
No, they don’t, and they cannot. But since you made the claim, I’ll let you provide the cite, which I’m sure is forthcoming, right?
This is very silly pedantry. I understood exactly what Johnny Ace meant. For all intents and purposes, immediately after redistricting, the legislature has determined how many voters in each party are in each district, within a very small margin of error. That’s literally the purpose of gerrymandering. And yes, while the exact numbers can shift, that doesn’t actually imply that they will shift dramatically enough to undo the bias the gerrymandering introduces.