Gerrymander Art

[theDoctorisIn]

The drawing of districts needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians. Every state should move to an independent redistricting commission to draw them out made up of state residents who are not in elected office, employed by the government or any political party, or a member of any political party's committees.

It wouldn't take more than a few years before that committee of "district drawers" becomes as political a position as any other - and we end up with just as ridiculous districts, with even less transparency than there is now.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?

How would you suggest doing so?

I hear everyone on both sides whine about gerrymandering all the time, but I've never heard anyone come up with a solution that could possibly work.

In the end, someone has the draw the lines.

Randomly draw the boundaries with only two criteria, minimum district border length and the prescribed population number.

It's not possible to "randomly" draw districts like that.

 

[Article 15]

When the radical left agrees that all Americans are equal regardless of their skin color it will pretty much end the Gerrymandering system.

Dude... Gerrymandering may be an accusation both parties can wear with weird American Political Pride, but Republicans made it an art form.

Proof?

About 1.5 million more votes were cast for democratic house candidates last election than for republicans, and yet the republicans control the house.

Radical House GOP made safe by gerrymandering - Video on NBCNews.com

Gerrymander Math!

Ahem:

16 of the 21 most-gerrymandered Congressional districts are Democratic.

Let me guess: It's different -- somehow -- it just is!! when Democrats do it.

You should just hold up a sign saying "I have no clue how gerrymandering works"

Fuck, you're dumb

 

[percysunshine]

How would you suggest doing so?

I hear everyone on both sides whine about gerrymandering all the time, but I've never heard anyone come up with a solution that could possibly work.

In the end, someone has the draw the lines.

Randomly draw the boundaries with only two criteria, minimum district border length and the prescribed population number.

It's not possible to "randomly" draw districts like that.

I am pretty sure it is possible. I have not seen the specific problem addressed, but it looks like a simulated annealing type problem, similar to the 'traveling salesman' problem where a salesman needs to know the route between some random set of cities which minimizes the distance he goes. If I write the code, do you think you can sell it for me?

 

[Article 15]

For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race. It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.

Take a look at North Carolina's 2012 results for the House, you dumb fucks.

All Daveman did was prove the GOP is by far a greater offender.

 

[daveman]

Dude... Gerrymandering may be an accusation both parties can wear with weird American Political Pride, but Republicans made it an art form.

Proof?

About 1.5 million more votes were cast for democratic house candidates last election than for republicans, and yet the republicans control the house.

Radical House GOP made safe by gerrymandering - Video on NBCNews.com

Gerrymander Math!

Ahem:

16 of the 21 most-gerrymandered Congressional districts are Democratic.

Let me guess: It's different -- somehow -- it just is!! when Democrats do it.

You should just hold up a sign saying "I have no clue how gerrymandering works"

Fuck, you're dumb

Why would I hold up a sign with a lie on it?

 

[daveman]

For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race. It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.

Take a look at North Carolina's 2012 results for the House, you dumb fucks.

All Daveman did was prove the GOP is by far a greater offender.

I'm sure you enjoy believing that. But then, you believe lots of stupid shit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Randomly draw the boundaries with only two criteria, minimum district border length and the prescribed population number.

It's not possible to "randomly" draw districts like that.

I am pretty sure it is possible. I have not seen the specific problem addressed, but it looks like a simulated annealing type problem, similar to the 'traveling salesman' problem where a salesman needs to know the route between some random set of cities which minimizes the distance he goes. If I write the code, do you think you can sell it for me?

You know, I did a quick google search about this and ended up in discussions of mathematics and computer science that went way over my head.

So you could be right. It's not a trivial problem to solve though.

 

[Article 15]

For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race. It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.

Take a look at North Carolina's 2012 results for the House, you dumb fucks.

All Daveman did was prove the GOP is by far a greater offender.

I'm sure you enjoy believing that. But then, you believe lots of stupid shit.

And he doubles down on stupid!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

He really doesn't get it.

What a maroon.

Ha!

 

[percysunshine]

It's not possible to "randomly" draw districts like that.

I am pretty sure it is possible. I have not seen the specific problem addressed, but it looks like a simulated annealing type problem, similar to the 'traveling salesman' problem where a salesman needs to know the route between some random set of cities which minimizes the distance he goes. If I write the code, do you think you can sell it for me?

You know, I did a quick google search about this and ended up in discussions of mathematics and computer science that went way over my head.

So you could be right. It's not a trivial problem to solve though.

Yeah, but can you sell it? If the DNC thinks the RNC has it, and the RNC thinks the DNC has it, they will throw millions at us....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I am pretty sure it is possible. I have not seen the specific problem addressed, but it looks like a simulated annealing type problem, similar to the 'traveling salesman' problem where a salesman needs to know the route between some random set of cities which minimizes the distance he goes. If I write the code, do you think you can sell it for me?

You know, I did a quick google search about this and ended up in discussions of mathematics and computer science that went way over my head.

So you could be right. It's not a trivial problem to solve though.

Yeah, but can you sell it? If the DNC thinks the RNC has it, and the RNC thinks the DNC has it, they will throw millions at us....

Doubtful. For all the Party folks I know, it'd be like trying to sell them a lit grenade.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you reach that conclusion? It just means that democrats tend to live in high density urban areas and republicans do not. It is exactly the effect you would expect to get using a randomly drawn set of district boundaries.

Tell me something, where were those votes cast? Did they come out of New York, California, Massachusetts, and other stats where Democrats won big? Are we supposed to throw some of the votes from California into Arkansas in order to make the results more to your liking? Will you end up complaining pathetically if that ends up with Republicans winning seats in California?

I was making a point about statistics. Don't really give a shit about what ever else is bothering you.

I quoted the wrong post, my bad.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Are you telling me the post where you said racial gerrymandering makes sense wasn't your post?

Where did I say that racial Gerrymandering made sense? The post is nested in above, and nowhere do I say Gerrymandering makes sense.

Pointing out the intent behind the Gerrymandering, as described in the article you linked to, does not amount to declaring support of the practice by me. You seem to be reaching.

Simple question, do you, or do you not, support the idea that districts should be designed to promote racial participation in politics? Is the only thing you object to is the fact that the other guys have an edge?

Let me put it this way... I don't like the idea of Gerrymandering for any reason. I think that districts should be as close to 4-sided as is geographically possible while maintaining appropriate population balances.

Does that help?

I also think that, over the years, the democrats are just as guilty of the practice as are their counterparts on the right. That said, I think that the evidence points to the republicans winning the game of unbalanced representation in congress at this moment in time. I would like to see the democrats foiled in any and all attempts to balance their historic deficit in the Gerrymander Wars, and have all districts drawn by independent organizations by 2020.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?

How would you suggest doing so?

I hear everyone on both sides whine about gerrymandering all the time, but I've never heard anyone come up with a solution that could possibly work.

In the end, someone has the draw the lines.

Right now, the politicians who're trying to hold on to power get to draw the lines and pre-select their own voters.

I don't think that the question is one of who could do a better job, but rather one of who couldn't

 

[percysunshine]

Tell me something, where were those votes cast? Did they come out of New York, California, Massachusetts, and other stats where Democrats won big? Are we supposed to throw some of the votes from California into Arkansas in order to make the results more to your liking? Will you end up complaining pathetically if that ends up with Republicans winning seats in California?

I was making a point about statistics. Don't really give a shit about what ever else is bothering you.

I quoted the wrong post, my bad.

Oh... then that must have been meant for AVG-Joe.

So AVG-Joe, what is your reply? chuckle

 

[AVG-JOE]

It works state by state.

In Pennsylvania, 70,659 more votes were cast for democratic candidates than for republican candidates, yet the state is represented in congress by 13 republicans and 5 democrats.

Graphic shows how Republican gerrymandering in PA has interfered with your right to be heard in DC - Democratic Underground

Math don't lie Gerrymandering works!​

 

[percysunshine]

It works state by state.

In Pennsylvania, 70,659 more votes were cast for democratic candidates than for republican candidates, yet the state is represented in congress by 13 republicans and 5 democrats.

Graphic shows how Republican gerrymandering in PA has interfered with your right to be heard in DC - Democratic Underground

Math don't lie Gerrymandering works!​

Gerrymandering happens, obviously, but the statistic being quoted is meaningless. We would get similar numbers without gerrymandering due only to the population distributions of voting patterns.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Similar?!?

We're going to have to agree to disagree about that prediction, percy.

 

[percysunshine]

Similar?!?

We're going to have to agree to disagree about that prediction, percy.

There would be one way to test it. Look at the historical situations when Democrats controlled State legislatures and ran gerrymandering, and look at the numbers.

 

[daveman]

For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race. It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.

Take a look at North Carolina's 2012 results for the House, you dumb fucks.

All Daveman did was prove the GOP is by far a greater offender.

I'm sure you enjoy believing that. But then, you believe lots of stupid shit.

And he doubles down on stupid!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

He really doesn't get it.

What a maroon.

Ha!

And now for a little dose of reality:

Are the Democrats still at a disadvantage in redistricting? ? The Monkey Cage

To what extent are Democrats inherently disadvantaged in congressional elections because of where they live? This was a hot topic of conversation just after the 2012 congressional elections, when the Democrats won a majority of the popular vote but a distinct minority of the seats in the House of Representatives. The subject has recently resurfaced in public debate, and the issues are important enough that they deserve some consideration.

First, some background. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden (hereafter, C&R) have developed a computer program that draws thousands of simulated districts using precinct-level data and a handful of systematic criteria. They then compare the actual redistricting plan to the simulated ones. If they don’t differ substantially, then any bias in the district lines cannot be blamed on gerrymandering. Or so goes the argument.

This method has attracted considerable attention because it appears to show that Democrats suffer because they are concentrated in urban areas and “waste” votes on big wins, not because Republicans have drawn the lines that way. In other words, Democrats are “unintentionally gerrymandered.” C&R are not the only ones to make this claim (for a recent example, see Nate Silver’s post here), but those who make it commonly cite this research.​