[RD] Death to the Gerrymander

[Lexicus]

I forgot, the Dems dont gerrymander

I mean, the Democrats' gerrymandering compared to the Republicans' is like a candle next to the Sun, but if you get it into your head to focus on the candle...

 

[Berzerker]

In the last gerrymander thread an example of the practice came from Chicago, a 'latino' district designed to produce a latino representative.

 

[metalhead]

I forgot, the Dems dont gerrymander

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I posted.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The incentives to gerrymander shouldn't exist. That's the right place to look. Current voting setup has created a two party monster of tribal behavior, not something that produces coherent policy.

 

[Berzerker]

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I posted.

Or, you know, a Hillary SCOTUS justice could have banded together with Ginsburg et al. and ended partisan gerrymandering once and for all, but whatever man. Your way is totally better and is obviously way more effective and certain and doesn't come with any obvious downsides that I can see

Sounded like you thought Saint Hillary would save us from gerrymandering. I suspect a judge picked by her would have seen the necessity of gerrymandering to ensure minority voices in Congress. Until the courts toss aside partisanship the only way to counter GOP gerrymandering is with Democrat gerrymandering, and that means Dems need to win more state legislatures and thats why Trump may be a blessing in disguise.

 

[metalhead]

Sounded like you thought Saint Hillary would save us from gerrymandering. I suspect a judge picked by her would have seen the necessity of gerrymandering to ensure minority voices in Congress. Until the courts toss aside partisanship the only way to counter GOP gerrymandering is with Democrat gerrymandering, and that means Dems need to win more state legislatures and thats why Trump may be a blessing in disguise.

A Clinton judge would be a lot more likely to strike down partisan gerrymandering than Neil Gorsuch is. You can preserve drawing districts to prioritize minority representation while also getting rid of partisan gerrymandering, so now you're conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another to stubbornly stick to your original, poorly thought out point.

And this still doesn't explain what "I forgot, Dems don't gerrymander" has to do with anything I posted.

 

[Cutlass]

Here's an analysis of what districts would look like under various different redistricting plans.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/#Compact

 

[Berzerker]

A Clinton judge would be a lot more likely to strike down partisan gerrymandering than Neil Gorsuch is. You can preserve drawing districts to prioritize minority representation while also getting rid of partisan gerrymandering, so now you're conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another to stubbornly stick to your original, poorly thought out point.

And this still doesn't explain what "I forgot, Dems don't gerrymander" has to do with anything I posted.

Gerrymandering created some minority districts, how do you preserve them if gerrymandering is eliminated? I dont know what Gorsuch thinks about gerrymandering, but I do know Hillary (and you) supports the practice. So why do you think she'd nominate someone who opposes it?

Here's an analysis of what districts would look like under various different redistricting plans.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/#Compact

Thats an excellent link, shows what I'm talking about:

There’s a lot of complaining about gerrymandering, but what should districts look like? We went back to the drawing board and drew a set of alternative congressional maps for the entire country. Each map has a different goal: One is designed to encourage competitive elections, for example, and another to maximize the number of majority-minority districts. See how changes to district boundaries could radically alter the partisan and racial makeup of the U.S. House — without a single voter moving or switching parties.

Lets see, districts drawn to be competitive results in 81.2 minority districts while districts drawn to promote minority representatives is 94.8... So racial gerrymandering results in 13-14 more minorities in Congress and thats why the Dems (minorities anyway) support gerrymandering. Well, the competitive map shows why both parties support gerrymandering. The irony is competitive districts favor the Dems but results in fewer minority seats.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Part of what has made this a problem is that computer number-crunching can now design these districts with precision to achieve precisely the intended results, i.e. the results that favor the party doing it.

I'd like to see that computer power used to turn the whole thing around: design districts with exactly equal numbers of Dems and Republicans. That way, all successful candidates will have to be moderates.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd like to see that computer power used to turn the whole thing around: design districts with exactly equal numbers of Dems and Republicans. That way, all successful candidates will have to be moderates.

David Brooks read these words and made a mess of his drawers

 

[Ajidica]

David Brooks read these words and made a mess of his drawers

I thought he already did that over Obama.

 

[Lexicus]

I thought he already did that over Obama.

No law says he can't do it again. Once every ten years seems about manageable for the guy.

 

[metalhead]

Gerrymandering created some minority districts, how do you preserve them if gerrymandering is eliminated? I dont know what Gorsuch thinks about gerrymandering, but I do know Hillary (and you) supports the practice. So why do you think she'd nominate someone who opposes it?

You don't know anything, obviously, because you don't seem to understand that there are different reasons for gerrymandering, and you can end one kind (partisan) without necessarily ending gerrymandering altogether.

Prior court cases make it quite obvious that conservative judges will vote to continue allowing partisan gerrymandering, while centrist and more lefty judges will vote to end it. A Hillary judge would likely vote to end it, where Neil Gorsuch assuredly will not.

 

[Oerdin]

There is really no reason they can't require a good faith effort at eliminating partisan advantage in district drawing, on the simple grounds that drawing districts for partisan political reasons is anti-democratic.

You will find it almost impossible to do that and comply with the Voting Rights Act's requirement for minority-majority districts. Fencing off all of the minorities (or at least a very large percentage) means you have to pack them that means the remaining districts are going to have very few minorities. So just because of that one rule you have already done half of the packing and cracking required to gerrymander.

 

[Oerdin]

In the last gerrymander thread an example of the practice came from Chicago, a 'latino' district designed to produce a latino representative.

Yeah, that is a racial gerrymandering and believe it or not it is legally required in the voting rights act.

That rule has a whole lot of downsides if one is concerned about creating competitive districts (which I agree should be the goal). So almost inevitablely if you want competitive elections you will have to end all gerrymandering including racial gerrymandering.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Outlaw political parties and assign senate and house seats the way they select people for jury duty. That would solve a few problems at once...

 

[Oerdin]

If you are randomly selecting people then that means people do not get to chose their representatives democratically. I do not see that going over well.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We actually need professional legislators. There are skills absolutely required in getting laws passed and in running a government that average joe citizen does not have nor could aquire in a 2 or 6 year term.

When you lack those skills you wind up with a Trump administration.

 

[metalhead]

You will find it almost impossible to do that and comply with the Voting Rights Act's requirement for minority-majority districts. Fencing off all of the minorities (or at least a very large percentage) means you have to pack them that means the remaining districts are going to have very few minorities. So just because of that one rule you have already done half of the packing and cracking required to gerrymander.

It's all about intent. I'm not claiming you'd end up with a perfect districting scheme if you got rid of partisan gerrymandering while still adhering to the VRA requirements regarding minority-majority districts. If you ditch partisan gerrymandering, then any reasonable need for such protections likely disappears.

However, getting rid of half the problematic "packing and cracking," as you call it, is preferable to the status quo. And there is a credible argument to be made that eliminating partisan gerrymandering would also necessitate the revisiting of the VRA requirements regarding the drawing of congressional districts, or SCOTUS could simply strike it altogether.

 

[Berzerker]

You don't know anything, obviously, because you don't seem to understand that there are different reasons for gerrymandering, and you can end one kind (partisan) without necessarily ending gerrymandering altogether.

Prior court cases make it quite obvious that conservative judges will vote to continue allowing partisan gerrymandering, while centrist and more lefty judges will vote to end it. A Hillary judge would likely vote to end it, where Neil Gorsuch assuredly will not.

Gerrymandering created some minority districts, how do you preserve them if gerrymandering is eliminated?