[RD] Gerrymandering

[Lexicus]

In states where they control the local houses. Quite like the dems have done in states that they control. (unless the state decides those things differently) I really don't see the big difference that you're claiming. Yes, I admit that the repugs have done it more. They've had more opportunity but that doesn't make it different.

Eh. It's different insofar as for the Republicans, it is literally their election strategy. The Republican Party, as it has existed since ca. 2008, cannot win free and fair elections in much of the United States. So they've engaged in unprecedented levels of gerrymandering, and various measures (voter ID laws, polling place shenanigans, etc) that intentionally deter Democratic voters from voting.

Given how easy it is for the white majority to drown out minority opinions and given how gerrymandering can help to ensure minorities have a say in governance, I am very cautious about condemning gerrymandering in toto.

Gerrymandering is precisely the device (well, one of the devices) by which the white majority is drowning out minority opinions.

Using electoral boundaries to achieve diverse representation outcomes is weird.

It's outrageously dishonest to portray gerrymandering as increasing minority representation or political power. Majority-minority districts for example (ordered by the Supreme Court as a remedy to the practice of spreading non-whites out among districts so they couldn't do anything) have simply resulted in the consolidation of white power base outside these districts.

 

[rah]

Eh. It's different insofar as for the Republicans, it is literally their election strategy. The Republican Party, as it has existed since ca. 2008, cannot win free and fair elections in much of the United States. So they've engaged in unprecedented levels of gerrymandering,

Whoever is in power is using it to their advantage. I see no difference. It has to stop on both sides.

If they can't win a fair election, how do they control the senate and all the governorships?
You can't blame it all on voter regulations.

 

[Evie]

The dems have run the Illinois house for a long time.
How is that not comparable. 61% is more than enough to control it. It's not like 52% of something.
They're exactly comparable. Both situations the party in power has taken advantage of it to make sure they keep it.

It's wrong in both states. IT's wrong wherever it happens regardless of who's doing it. Simple as that.

It's not comparable because the vote disparity is much higher in one case than in the other.

Vote disparity is unavoidable, because party support is not spread evenly on a regional basis. Some regions heavily support one party ; other regions mildly support the other party. Since the whole point is to elect people to represent those regions, and elections still go to whoever get the biggest share of votes, this will result in an unavoidable disparity between popular vote and seat distribution.

Even in a system where districts are drawn by a neutral commission on purely demographic data, it's possible for a party to get 40% of the votes and 54% of the seats (Liberal party of Canada, 2015). In this case, the number is further skewed by a multi-party system (since, in a three party system, which most of Canada has, it's possible to win a riding on as little as 34% of the local vote (with the other two parties splitting 33-33) ; falling to 25.1% with four contending parties (other three parties split 25-25-24.9)). We'd expect a two-party system to produce closer results (since you effectively need to beat the 50% mark to claim a seat), but even so, some seats will be won with 50.1% of the vote and others with 75% of the vote, because some areas vote more heavily in favor of one party than another.

The numbers for the Illinois house of representative (note that the 61% number is not for the Illinois house, but for the Federal House's Illinois delegation) don't support a case of massive gerrymandering. The fact that the Democrats have been in control a long time reflect the fact that, from 2006 onward at least, they had a clean majority (more than 50% of the vote) every election - even in a purely proportional system, they'd still have won control of the Illinois house. That they won the house each elections in that cycle cannot be held to indicate gerrymandering ; it's the expected result.

For another thing, for four of the elections in that period, there is very little vote disparity. In 2006, the Democrats got 55.9% of seats with 53.6% of the vote, int 56.8% of seats with 58% of votes (yes, they got a lower share of seats than share of votes), in 2012 they got 54.2% of seats off 51.4% of votes, and in 2016 56.8% of seats off 53% of the vote. These are extremely, almost boringly routine numbers for a single-turn two-party representative democracy. Years like 2014 (60.1% of seats over 50.5% of votes) and 2010 (59.3% of seats, 50.6% of votes) show a greater disparity, but even then we're still in the single-digit difference between voter counts and seat count.

Note also that they got 60% of seats exactly once in that period, and then only by the slimmest margin (60.1% in 2014).

All in all, those numbers seem to indicate that while there probably is some gerrymandering, it's just not particularly significant. And it definitely indicate that such gerrymandering has never robbed the Republicans of a win.

 

[Lexicus]

If they can't win a fair election, how do they control the senate and all the governorships?

The great majority of those elections were not free or fair.

You can't blame it all on voter regulations.

Watch me. If the US had compulsory voting the Republican Party as it exists today would be an insignificant fringe party.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's outrageously dishonest to portray gerrymandering as increasing minority representation or political power. Majority-minority districts for example (ordered by the Supreme Court as a remedy to the practice of spreading non-whites out among districts so they couldn't do anything) have simply resulted in the consolidation of white power base outside these districts.

This is one of the ironies of the gerrymandering concept. It is not difficult to achieve the opposite of the objective. Some of those districts are still 70% minority, so they reliably get a minority Representative. One Representative where they might have elected two or three.

Another irony is that Such districts strongly resist change of any kind. A vote in the House is worth three in the bush.

J

 

[metatron]

Hacks ?? I don't know Bee enough to comment on her, but while I see how Colbert's style is not super helpful at convincing people that aren't already convinced Oliver has his good moments. In the Gerrymandering video he makes some interesting points about how districts that looks bad on a map might be a lot better in terms of actually representing the people in the area than good old squares (in certain specific circumstances). Yes the Drumpf bit during the election was probably counter productive but his coverage of things is mostly good.

Admittedly this is one of Oliver's better works. And a fair share of his pieces are fine.
E.g. his rants about monarchy, the Oylmpics and Fifa are rather harmless fun. And sometimes he does well on serious topics, e.g. cpital punishment.
But on too many US partisan issues he descends into cringeworthy misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty covered in faux expertism. If i happen to share his fundamental conviction regarding the issue that makes this more infuriating, not less.

It's outrageously dishonest to portray gerrymandering as increasing minority representation or political power. Majority-minority districts for example (ordered by the Supreme Court as a remedy to the practice of spreading non-whites out among districts so they couldn't do anything) have simply resulted in the consolidation of white power base outside these districts.

Yeah, i suffered from an uncharacteristic affinity for diplomacy (dunno why) but that's basically what i meant to say just then.

 

[JollyRoger]

This is one of the ironies of the gerrymandering concept. It is not difficult to achieve the opposite of the objective. Some of those districts are still 70% minority, so they reliably get a minority Representative. One Representative where they might have elected two or three.

Another irony is that Such districts strongly resist change of any kind. A vote in the House is worth three in the bush.

J

Actually, this has been complained about in several recent Supreme Court cases. It is being protested and litigated, not resisted.

 

[Berzerker]

Gerrymandering isn’t just about cementing existing political interests. It can also be a powerful tool for helping to give minorities representations. Districts across the US have been gerrymandered to produce districts specifically likely to result in the election of minority representatives.

Given how easy it is for the white majority to drown out minority opinions and given how gerrymandering can help to ensure minorities have a say in governance, I am very cautious about condemning gerrymandering in toto.

it could be argued that practice creates greater polarization by marginalizing more black voters than it empowers.

Instead of a higher % of black voters in more districts, they're concentrated into one or two to achieve a safe seat

 

[onejayhawk]

Actually, this has been complained about in several recent Supreme Court cases. It is being protested and litigated, not resisted.

Which district set up more than 40 years ago is being litigated?

J

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't know. I was responding to your point without your new stipulation.

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't know. I was responding to your point without your new stipulation.

The districts ordered by the Court were created in the 1970s. In that period, blacks in the inner city and deep South sometimes worked with Republicans to gain majority black districts, despite Democrat control of state politics. IIRC the Supreme Court cases arose from such situations.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

No. The recent Supreme Court decision have involved packing - putting way more of a group in a district than is needed to safely elect a representative of their choice in order to dilute the chances of such a representative being elected in an additional or additional districts. The caes have been about maps drawn since the 2010 census.

 

[onejayhawk]

No. The recent Supreme Court decision have involved packing - putting way more of a group in a district than is needed to safely elect a representative of their choice in order to dilute the chances of such a representative being elected in an additional or additional districts. The caes have been about maps drawn since the 2010 census.

The cases are not recent, hence the "more than 40 years ago" reference. This was back when courts were ordering school bussing.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You can't blame it all on voter regulations.

You live in Illinois and are likely a middle or upper middle class citizen so you wouldn't know anything better. Illinois has decent, if not great, options for voting and registering. Compare that to Missouri where this happened to me:

I was out of town on election day for work so I wanted an absentee ballot.

To get the absentee ballot, I first had to fill out a form online and wait for the ballot to come in the mail. Then I had to get a sworn affidavit notarized stating my reason for voting absentee was valid. Unless you could get to a courthouse during business hours and had time to wait in line to have it done, this cost money.

Then I had to mail in the ballot with a stamp I had to pay for. That's two instances of a backdoor poll tax and the whole ordeal took several days and lots of effort to put in. Now factor in the lack of public transit to do the leg work of getting this form processed requiring me to have a car or pay for a taxi (another backdoor poll tax), then factor in that I had to take off work to do this during business hours (another backdoor poll tax) oh and I had to have a voter ID card which itself takes a similar amount of legwork to get.

In the end, for someone of decent means to do all this it's not a huge task. But for everyone not in the middle class, this would be an almost insurmountable challenge.

If you have a car and the ability to take off work and pay for all these steps then you wouldn't really think twice about jumping through all these hoops. To the point where you can't even empathize with those who are less well off which are put in a position of hardship just to vote. You'll dismiss those concerns as just trivial things and probably blame those who struggle to jump through these hoops as lazy.

Now play this scenario out times several million for every poor person in states with restrictive voting systems and you'll see why it's a massive problem. Hell, Missourians even shot down an attempt to extend voting by just a couple of days because it would make it easier for the poor to vote on the theory that this would help the Democrats.

It's a massive problem and it's the kind of thing people of modest means just can't understand. It's like one of my aunts (born in an upper middle class family that always had health insurance) complaining that we don't need Obamacare because poor people should just buy their own insurance.

The sad thing is that Missouri is probably far from the worst when it comes to voter suppression.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Also note that at the end of the day I had to take off as much work just to freaking vote absentee as I would have to been able to vote in person which is ridiculous and defeats the point. Unfortunately, the day of the election I had lots of meetings I couldn't get out of so Ididn't have any other option.

 

[Samson]

Also note that at the end of the day I had to take off as much work just to freaking vote absentee as I would have to been able to vote in person which is ridiculous and defeats the point. Unfortunately, the day of the election I had lots of meetings I couldn't get out of so Ididn't have any other option.

To most people over here, the idea that one may have to take time off work to vote is ridiculous, and probably a voter suppression measure in and of itself.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That is the case I believe in the vast majority of states. Some states have online or mail-in only voting but they are a small minority. California does have an extensive (and awesome - they even send a voter guide to explain all of the measures on the ballot) mail-in ballot system and also requires employees to give time off to people to vote if they request. I can't remember if it's paid time off or not but I'm pretty sure it is.

Unfortunately that is not the case in most states and many states are making things worse by closing as many polling stations as they can get away with to force people to drive to polling stations (they should be in walking distance) and then wait in line. Oh then they cut polling station operating times so that they can turn away people in line when the doors close.* Again, this is being done as part of the theory that anything that makes it harder for the poor to vote helps the Republicans who are passing these laws.

And there is even videos of various Republicans admitting to both voter suppression and gerrymandering as cornerstones of their election strategies. I'm not kidding, you can find the videos online. You have to be willfully ignorant to see it any other way.

*It's rarer for the Republicans to mandate that polling stations turn people away who are in line but it does happen. In any case they know that there is a very high probability that if they herd enough poor people into far away polling stations with 5 hour lines then a large proportion of them will give up and go home because of a million valid reasons like having to get up early the next day to go to work.

 

[Commodore]

You live in Illinois and are likely a middle or upper middle class citizen so you wouldn't know anything better. Illinois has decent, if not great, options for voting and registering. Compare that to Missouri where this happened to me:

I was out of town on election day for work so I wanted an absentee ballot.

To get the absentee ballot, I first had to fill out a form online and wait for the ballot to come in the mail. Then I had to get a sworn affidavit notarized stating my reason for voting absentee was valid. Unless you could get to a courthouse during business hours and had time to wait in line to have it done, this cost money.

Then I had to mail in the ballot with a stamp I had to pay for. That's two instances of a backdoor poll tax and the whole ordeal took several days and lots of effort to put in. Now factor in the lack of public transit to do the leg work of getting this form processed requiring me to have a car or pay for a taxi (another backdoor poll tax), then factor in that I had to take off work to do this during business hours (another backdoor poll tax) oh and I had to have a voter ID card which itself takes a similar amount of legwork to get.

In the end, for someone of decent means to do all this it's not a huge task. But for everyone not in the middle class, this would be an almost insurmountable challenge.

If you have a car and the ability to take off work and pay for all these steps then you wouldn't really think twice about jumping through all these hoops. To the point where you can't even empathize with those who are less well off which are put in a position of hardship just to vote. You'll dismiss those concerns as just trivial things and probably blame those who struggle to jump through these hoops as lazy.

Now play this scenario out times several million for every poor person in states with restrictive voting systems and you'll see why it's a massive problem. Hell, Missourians even shot down an attempt to extend voting by just a couple of days because it would make it easier for the poor to vote on the theory that this would help the Democrats.

It's a massive problem and it's the kind of thing people of modest means just can't understand. It's like one of my aunts (born in an upper middle class family that always had health insurance) complaining that we don't need Obamacare because poor people should just buy their own insurance.

The sad thing is that Missouri is probably far from the worst when it comes to voter suppression.

Okay, so it's difficult to get an absentee ballot. How many poor people really need an absentee ballot though? Last I checked, most poor people aren't in professions that require them to do a lot of out-of-town traveling.

Not to mention, that opening sentence is probably one of the most condescending things I've read on this site.

Some states have online or mail-in only voting but they are a small minority.

No, they are not the minority. In fact, 27 states offer no-excuse absentee ballots:

 

[Samson]

Okay, so it's difficult to get an absentee ballot. How many poor people really need an absentee ballot though? Last I checked, most poor people aren't in professions that require them to do a lot of out-of-town traveling.

Most (many?) poor people cannot take a day off to vote perhaps?

 

[Lexicus]

Most (many?) poor people cannot take a day off to vote perhaps?

Most poor people aren't especially motivated to vote in the first place because the two parties don't care about them and make it clear every day.