Gerrymander Art

[daveman]

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

Most states have split control over redistricting.

All About Redistricting -- Who draws the lines

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Then stop crying about the fact that, despite massive gerrymandering by Democrats over decades of drawing maps to disenfranchise Republicans, Republicans now have the upper hand and are returning the favor. You can also advocate that the interpretation of the VRA that mandates racial gerrymandering be challenged in court, or that Congress pass a law negating it. While you are at it, you should demand that Congress pass a law mandating that all federal districts be drawn using minimum district to convex polygon ratio or the shortest splitline algorithm. States would still be free to use gerrymandering to control local and state level representation, but it would eliminate it at the federal level. I think most states would use the same districts at the state level in order to save money, but California would still be free to show how bad Progressive Democrats can screw things up.

Until you do that you are a hack, and don't deserve to be treated as anything but a hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It was. I should have caught it before you saw it, at least before I turned off the computer.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

I thought you were talking about similar numbers without Gerrymandering.

It doesn't matter if districts are being successfully Gerrymandered for a red advantage or for a blue advantage... successful Gerrymandering is the problem that must be resolved.

 

[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.

I thought you were talking about similar numbers without Gerrymandering.

It doesn't matter if districts are being successfully Gerrymandered for a red advantage or for a blue advantage... successful Gerrymandering is the problem that must be resolved.

I was talking about the numbers without gerrymandering. Thinking about it for a bit, looking only at Dem gerrymandering can't prove the math. I may have to draw a picture or something.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Then stop crying about the fact that, despite massive gerrymandering by Democrats over decades of drawing maps to disenfranchise Republicans, Republicans now have the upper hand and are returning the favor. You can also advocate that the interpretation of the VRA that mandates racial gerrymandering be challenged in court, or that Congress pass a law negating it. While you are at it, you should demand that Congress pass a law mandating that all federal districts be drawn using minimum district to convex polygon ratio or the shortest splitline algorithm. States would still be free to use gerrymandering to control local and state level representation, but it would eliminate it at the federal level. I think most states would use the same districts at the state level in order to save money, but California would still be free to show how bad Progressive Democrats can screw things up.

Until you do that you are a hack, and don't deserve to be treated as anything but a hack.

Finished labeling? Seriously... Why go there?

I'll say anything I want. That's the point of The Board.



And in ironic news, you're accusing me of being two-faced with regards to Gerrymandering is laughable considering you just defended republican Gerrymandering by pointing out that the democrats did it first.

With Gerrymandering, you either have to support it when BOTH sides do it, or condemn it when BOTH sides do it.

How about it? You obviously decry successful blue Gerrymandering... are you now going to defend successful red Gerrymandering?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

I thought you were talking about similar numbers without Gerrymandering.

It doesn't matter if districts are being successfully Gerrymandered for a red advantage or for a blue advantage... successful Gerrymandering is the problem that must be resolved.

I was talking about the numbers without gerrymandering. Thinking about it for a bit, looking only at Dem gerrymandering can't prove the math. I may have to draw a picture or something.

I don't think that the real harm resulting from Gerrymandering this successfully has been fully realized yet. The current republican success story doesn't start with 2010... Ass-u-me-ing some semblance of sanity returns to the district map in 2020, the current republican success story culminates with 2010.

We're going to be learning how the most successful Gerrymandering endeavor thus far in American History has damaged our democracy with extremism for at least the next 20 years.

 

[asterism]

Liberals sure whine a lot when they have to deal with results they don't like.

 

[Pogo]

Liberals sure whine a lot when they have to deal with results they don't like.

Actually that ^^ is a pretty good definition of gerrymandering.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Then stop crying about the fact that, despite massive gerrymandering by Democrats over decades of drawing maps to disenfranchise Republicans, Republicans now have the upper hand and are returning the favor. You can also advocate that the interpretation of the VRA that mandates racial gerrymandering be challenged in court, or that Congress pass a law negating it. While you are at it, you should demand that Congress pass a law mandating that all federal districts be drawn using minimum district to convex polygon ratio or the shortest splitline algorithm. States would still be free to use gerrymandering to control local and state level representation, but it would eliminate it at the federal level. I think most states would use the same districts at the state level in order to save money, but California would still be free to show how bad Progressive Democrats can screw things up.

Until you do that you are a hack, and don't deserve to be treated as anything but a hack.

Finished labeling? Seriously... Why go there?

I'll say anything I want. That's the point of The Board.



And in ironic news, you're accusing me of being two-faced with regards to Gerrymandering is laughable considering you just defended republican Gerrymandering by pointing out that the democrats did it first.

With Gerrymandering, you either have to support it when BOTH sides do it, or condemn it when BOTH sides do it.

How about it? You obviously decry successful blue Gerrymandering... are you now going to defend successful red Gerrymandering?

As usual, you are confused. I didn't defend anything, I pointed out your stupidity. I even pointed out one Republican district that was gerrymandered by Democrats, for Democrats, but still voted Republican. Yet you kept insisting that Republicans were the bad guys because they won that district, among others.

 

[dcraelin]

one way around gerrymandering would be a proportional representation method in states with say more than 4 rep spots

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hell, Brother... rolling dice would be more fair than letting the political party in state power draw their own congressional districts.

Things that make us look stupid from space.

​

 

[dcraelin]

gerrymandering violates the principles of honest fair play and republicanism. It creates state and federal legislatures that arent truely representative of the people.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That and voter suppression is going to guarantee the worst of our congress a permanent place at the trough. They get 2/3rds of the year off, a paid vacation. We pay for their health care insurance even while they try to stop us from being able to buy at the same lower rate. Their other benefits are nothing short of obscene.

They steal from the poor and give to the rich and the god damned fucking gullible right wing voter has made it impossible to ever fire the most useless of them. The right wing voter is owned, lock, stock and barrel by the Koch's. Fox, Beck, Limbaugh and other shills tell them what to think.

I've noticed that the very phrases used by them will show up here and then, later, I'll hear that phrase spoken by one of the rw shills when its used as proof of just how corrupt the right is.

We're stuck with this corrupt government. We're stuck with Boehner/Cantor/Ryan and the rest of the thieves. But, that should not stop us from voting against them. We must vote to get our country back.

. Ironic that is what your progressive leaders tell you, isn't it?

 

[Missourian]

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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!

that's because they are concentrated in urban ghettos.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Interesting interpretation. That article is all about Racial Gerrymandering - a process used to ensure racial balance in the districts. Specifically, the intent was to build districts which would each reflect the same racial percentages that are found in the state at large.

Any fool can see that Republican Gerrymandering does quite the opposite - creating districts of exclusion rather than inclusion.

If you were hoping that the VRA connection would be a grand excuse for republican Gerrymandering, think again, Bud.

Since blacks tend to vote as a block (95% voting for Obama) their influence on districts needs to be broken up so there is a better representation for all who live in the district.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I covered this topic on my Clean Debate Zone thread on Electioneering, from January 8, 2014:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html

Posting no. 2:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html#post8424470

Quote:

With redistricting done at a national level with a Super-Computer with only three parameters:

-State borders
-population
-geography and „logical connectivity“

A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year.

That would take care of the problem for good.

 

[Statistikhengst]

 

[Missourian]

I covered this topic on my Clean Debate Zone thread on Electioneering, from January 8, 2014:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html

Posting no. 2:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html#post8424470

Quote:

With redistricting done at a national level with a Super-Computer with only three parameters:

-State borders
-population
-geography and „logical connectivity“

A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year.

That would take care of the problem for good.

I wouldn't willingly give the Federal Government one tittle more power than it already has...in fact, we need to take a good bit of it back.