SCOTUS on Gerrymander

[Phrossack]

It's the subject of the thread.

I took the thread more as a discussion of gerrymandering in general, since any SCOTUS decision on gerrymandering affects us all, hence the "we." I'm not calling for the rest of the US to dictate NC affairs, if that's what you're thinking.

 

[Farm Boy]

Is it really gerrymandered though?

We have Chicago, but yes, it's one of the more significantly gerrymandered states. There isn't particularly meaningful disagreement to be had.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well I'm addressing you. Democracy is rule by the people. In North Carolina, that means me. Personally, I don't buy into the illusion of democracy. Buttinskies, however are quite real, and a perpetual nuisance.

No this is not how a federal system works. It acknowledges that the systems though separate do interact and inter-relate which means what NC does does effect the rest of the Union. Its not people picking on NC, its people afraid what is happening in NC spreads (it already has and is continuing to do so). We deserve to have something close to proper representation in a republic, this cannot continue for very long without real problems blossoming out of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not quite. There is a higher percentage of dems in both houses then the population would predict but it's no where near as slanted as it is the other way in Wisconsin. But yeah the demographics in the state do favor the Dems.

We have Chicago, but yes, it's one of the more significantly gerrymandered states. There isn't particularly meaningful disagreement to be had.

And yet Rah, a former Republican in Illinois, meaningfully disagrees.

 

[rah]

Again, not quite. We're not slanted as much Dem wise as Wisconsin is Rep wise when you look at percentage of voters vs representatives, but Illinois is very significantly gerrymandered. It's all a matter of degree.

in the midterms I think in Illinois it was 62% of the seats on 59% of the vote.
vs Wisc 63% of the seats vs only 46% of the vote.

Not all the seats were up so this doesn't draw a complete picture but you get the drift.

 

[Estebonrober]

Again, not quite. We're not slanted as much Dem wise as Wisconsin is Rep wise when you look at percentage of voters vs representatives, but Illinois is very significantly gerrymandered. It's all a matter of degree.

in the midterms I think in Illinois it was 62% of the seats on 59% of the vote.
vs Wisc 63% of the seats vs only 46% of the vote.

Not all the seats were up so this doesn't draw a complete picture but you get the drift.

62/59? Is that within an acceptable error rate? I'm curious about solutions to this although I think the SCOTUS is going to rule that it has no interests in solutions.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Illinois' congressional districts cleaned up a bit since the horrendous 2003-2013 time period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois'_congressional_districts

(4th district is still an eyesore)

Wisconsin's has changed some over time, but not a lot (compared to Illinois).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin's_congressional_districts

 

[uppi]

62/59? Is that within an acceptable error rate? I'm curious about solutions to this although I think the SCOTUS is going to rule that it has no interests in solutions.

In a FPTP system, any vote share significantly above 50% makes the seat share alone quite meaningless. If the political makeup of the state was completely homogeneous, 59% of the vote would result in 100% of the seats. If it's 62% instead, you could say this is good gerrymandering - you mitigate the awful effects of FPTP by manipulating the districts so that the seat share roughly matches the vote share. If you want to calculate how bad the gerrymandering is, you would need to compare the results to the results "reasonable" districting (however you define it) would produce. The answer would heavily depend on how homogeneous the voting population is.

In any case, the real problem is FPTP and single seat districts. Until you fix that, you will always have these problems.

 

[rah]

Actually that 62/59 is the closest I've seen it. I've seen it as high as 10-12% in previous years.

 

[Estebonrober]

In a FPTP system, any vote share significantly above 50% makes the seat share alone quite meaningless. If the political makeup of the state was completely homogeneous, 59% of the vote would result in 100% of the seats. If it's 62% instead, you could say this is good gerrymandering - you mitigate the awful effects of FPTP by manipulating the districts so that the seat share roughly matches the vote share. If you want to calculate how bad the gerrymandering is, you would need to compare the results to the results "reasonable" districting (however you define it) would produce. The answer would heavily depend on how homogeneous the voting population is.

In any case, the real problem is FPTP and single seat districts. Until you fix that, you will always have these problems.

While the math nerd in me can relate to the reality of this comment, the political nerd is more interested in how we can get close enough that it doesn't seem like the gerrymandering is more important than the votes in the first place. IE the voters are choosing their representative and not the other way around. I'm open to trying dramatically different ways of voting to get closer to actual representation, but that's probably fraught with bad implications. How long do you try something before moving on? Can you just use simulation to find something close to truly effective for our sense of justice on this topic?

 

[rah]

Non biased redistricting has already been proven effective. (not perfect, but much better)

 

[uppi]

While the math nerd in me can relate to the reality of this comment, the political nerd is more interested in how we can get close enough that it doesn't seem like the gerrymandering is more important than the votes in the first place. IE the voters are choosing their representative and not the other way around. I'm open to trying dramatically different ways of voting to get closer to actual representation, but that's probably fraught with bad implications. How long do you try something before moving on? Can you just use simulation to find something close to truly effective for our sense of justice on this topic?

No, you cannot use just simulation. It can be a powerful too for good or bad, but simulation cannot answer the question what people consider to be just. You can put value on all kindds of things. Do you want minority representation? Do you want a result that is robust against small swings, or do you want one that is very sensitive to those? Do you want the seat share roughly follow the vote share? To you want nice looking districts? Do you want to respect existing community borders or do you purposely want to mix up communities? With simulation you can optimize towards all these goals, usually at the expense of others. You would go through the possible distribution of results and pick those you like.

Whoever makes up these rules is effectively going to chose the voters and thus will have a tremendous impact on future politics.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, you cannot use just simulation. It can be a powerful too for good or bad, but simulation cannot answer the question what people consider to be just. You can put value on all kindds of things. Do you want minority representation? Do you want a result that is robust against small swings, or do you want one that is very sensitive to those? Do you want the seat share roughly follow the vote share? To you want nice looking districts? Do you want to respect existing community borders or do you purposely want to mix up communities? With simulation you can optimize towards all these goals, usually at the expense of others. You would go through the possible distribution of results and pick those you like.

Whoever makes up these rules is effectively going to chose the voters and thus will have a tremendous impact on future politics.

All your questions here bring up the problem of subjective justice. It makes it almost impossible to believe there is a way to handle this appropriately. I feel certain that is the argument the conservative SCOTUS is about to make and therefore we have to live with this vastly inferior system that subjugates a huge population in many states to the will of a minority consistently. I think we shouldn't be trying to engineer the results we want so much as come up with a system that is just. What is just being a touch question for me personally. I like the idea of open primaries and nice looking districts. It seems less arbitrary and more likely to produce less violent swings to the left or right in any given election. I'm open to ranked voting or whatever its called but I'm not sure it plays out any differently than FPTP systems in our two party system.

 

[Lexicus]

Democracy is rule by the people. In North Carolina, that means me. Personally, I don't buy into the illusion of democracy.

Well, we could all tell you didn't buy into the "illusion of democracy" when you said "the people...means me". L'etat, c'est moi

 

[Naskra]

impossible to believe there is a way to handle this appropriately

The way out is to admit that this question is quite explicitly outside the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Otherwise they will make a bad decision where no good decision is possible.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@uppi FTPT = ????

 

[Lexicus]

@uppi FTPT = ????

typo for FPTP

 

[Birdjaguar]

typo for FPTP

OK, let me rephrase that then. FPTP = ????

 

[Farm Boy]

First Past The Post. Districts that award a representative by majority vote. Many of the Euros and Europhiles find non-apportionment in the form of % based awarding of seats and coalition governments, parliamentary style, to be an affront, if I am not mistaken.

Lots of side-eying at the Senate too, even though many of the states rival the members of the quasi-confederation. Which you can see the tension of played out in discussions regarding sovereignty and the EU. Brexit, whatnot.

 

[schlaufuchs]

OK, let me rephrase that then. FPTP = ????

As Farm Boy said: Single-representative districts in which the first candidate to cross a threshold (50% OR a plurality of votes, depending on the rules) wins everything.

See: