What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The End of Gerrymandering? (1 Viewer)

cstu

Footballguy
http://billmoyers.com/2015/07/13/citizen-led-state-gerrymandering-reforms-start-to-show-results/

Partisan gerrymandering has long been a scourge on the American political landscape — a problem that many observers think is only getting worse with the increasingly technologically sophisticated ways to micro-manipulate maps.

But a big win last week for reformers in the Florida Supreme Court shows that citizen-led efforts to fix gerrymandering have teeth and are starting to yield promising results.

As in many states, the job of redrawing district boundaries every 10 years in Florida is left to the state legislature. Although the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act constrained the legislature’s ability to draw maps to disadvantage minority communities, neither provided effective protection against partisan manipulation. In fact, in Florida, as in a number of Southern states, politicians often successfully defended maps that they drew by saying that they were attempting to disadvantage members of the opposing political party rather than minorities. The Florida state constitution, likewise, contained no limitation on the use of the redistricting process to achieve partisan ends. Not surprisingly, Florida’s congressional districts were wildly gerrymandered.

All that changed in 2010 when a group of Florida voters — frustrated by federal courts’ seeming inability to come up with an enforceable standard for partisan gerrymandering — successfully collected enough signatures to put a proposition on the ballot to reform redistricting by amending the state constitution. Their amendment proposed for the first time explicit constitutional standards for the legislature to follow when redistricting, including a requirement that “[n]o apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.” The proposed amendment also required that districts, “where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.” Despite broad opposition from much of Florida’s political class, the amendment passed with more than 62 percent of the vote, winning in nearly every part of the state.

A crucial test for the amendment came with the 2011 round of redistricting when a group of Florida voters challenged maps drawn by the legislature on the grounds that, despite the clear dictate of the amendment, legislators and political consultants had operated behind the scenes to draw maps favoring the legislature’s Republican majority.

After a long court battle, the Florida Supreme Court recently agreed, ordering the legislature to redraw eight of the state’s 27 congressional districts in time for the 2016 election.

The Florida win comes on the heels of a US Supreme Court ruling just a week earlier in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which upheld citizens’ broad power to use ballot initiatives to enact redistricting and other electoral reforms, even in the face of opposition from self-interested political insiders. And like Florida’s amendment, many of those reforms are starting to bear fruit.

In California and Arizona, voters used ballot propositions to take mapdrawing power away from politicians entirely, giving it instead to an independent body. Although both commissions are still relatively new, much of the early data is promising. Prior to creation of California’s independent commission, Democrats and Republicans had engaged in a “bipartisan gerrymander” to protect incumbents. With technology at their disposal, they were so successful that in 459 elections, only one incumbent legislator or member of Congress lost his or her seat over a 10-year span. Just five percent of the state’s congressional seats, in fact, were even marginally competitive. And despite a growing Latino population, Latinos were effectively locked out of new opportunities for power.

By contrast, the first commission-drawn congressional map successfully increased the number of competitive congressional districts in the state from five percent to 18 percent, while increasing Latino representation. Commission-drawn maps in other states have engendered much less litigation than maps drawn by legislatures.

Buoyed by these results — and by the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation that voters have the power to experiment with ways to rein in redistricting abuses — reformers in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and South Dakota are already considering ballot initiatives to follow in the footsteps of Arizona, California and Florida. In short, this could be a real reform moment — and a chance for American voters to take power in their own hands to finally end a problem that has dogged the country from its inception.
 
So no more far majority white or far majority black districts, right?

Why not just print ballots without the party identification on them?

 
The AZ case was also kind of nuts because the constitution explicitly stated that the re districting could only be done by the legislature. I have no idea how that was permitted.

 
The AZ case was also kind of nuts because the constitution explicitly stated that the re districting could only be done by the legislature. I have no idea how that was permitted.
Did you read the opinion? They explain that "legislature" didn't mean a specific lawmaking body at the time the state constitution was written. The people that passed the referendum are the legislature.
 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
But what if the computer program was made by Diebold?

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
 
Dudes, simple parameters. An algorithm to devise districts with the smallest cumulative borders while keeping the populations of the district within a 5% range.

To quote a fellow at another board: "Computers are how we get chit done these days."

 
Dudes, simple parameters. An algorithm to devise districts with the smallest cumulative borders while keeping the populations of the district within a 5% range.

To quote a fellow at another board: "Computers are how we get chit done these days."
And if that 5% range keeps leaning a certain way?

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Careful now, dems fightin' words to some 'round these parts.

 
Dudes, simple parameters. An algorithm to devise districts with the smallest cumulative borders while keeping the populations of the district within a 5% range.

To quote a fellow at another board: "Computers are how we get chit done these days."
And if that 5% range keeps leaning a certain way?
Dude.

I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Careful now, dems fightin' words to some 'round these parts.
I would enjoy that fight.

 
Dudes, simple parameters. An algorithm to devise districts with the smallest cumulative borders while keeping the populations of the district within a 5% range.

To quote a fellow at another board: "Computers are how we get chit done these days."
And if that 5% range keeps leaning a certain way?
Dude.

I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Careful now, dems fightin' words to some 'round these parts.
I would enjoy that fight.
I'm always intrigues by the notion that mere mortals were somehow made omniscient for a brief period of time during the mid-late 18th century. Those know-it-alls really made life fun for the rest of us small brained folk.

 
Dudes, simple parameters. An algorithm to devise districts with the smallest cumulative borders while keeping the populations of the district within a 5% range.

To quote a fellow at another board: "Computers are how we get chit done these days."
And if that 5% range keeps leaning a certain way?
Dude.

I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Careful now, dems fightin' words to some 'round these parts.
I would enjoy that fight.
I'm always intrigues by the notion that mere mortals were somehow made omniscient for a brief period of time during the mid-late 18th century. Those know-it-alls really made life fun for the rest of us small brained folk.
I'm always amazed we still hold these people and their ideas in reverence when they had to schedule their nation makin' meetings around leechings, slave beatings, and wipings of their own ##### with corncobs.

 
Personally, I think we should get rid of all districts and go to more of a representative democracy for each state. Split out the seats based on total party votes.

Example: California has 53 districts. Using the last presidential elections as an example, where Democrats made up 60.24% of the vote, Republicans 37.12%, and Libertarians 1.1% So for the 53 seats, the top 32(31.9272 rounded to the nearest whole number) democrat, 20(19.67) republican, and 1(.583) libertarian votegetters win.

Not only does it stop the gerrymandering, but it suddenly gives third parties a fighting chance.

 
Personally, I think we should get rid of all districts and go to more of a representative democracy for each state. Split out the seats based on total party votes.

Example: California has 53 districts. Using the last presidential elections as an example, where Democrats made up 60.24% of the vote, Republicans 37.12%, and Libertarians 1.1% So for the 53 seats, the top 32(31.9272 rounded to the nearest whole number) democrat, 20(19.67) republican, and 1(.583) libertarian votegetters win.

Not only does it stop the gerrymandering, but it suddenly gives third parties a fighting chance.
A rare point of agreement for us.

Now we just need Slapdash in here so he and I can just take off completely for proportionate voting/parliamentarian nutso-land.

 
Personally, I think we should get rid of all districts and go to more of a representative democracy for each state. Split out the seats based on total party votes.

Example: California has 53 districts. Using the last presidential elections as an example, where Democrats made up 60.24% of the vote, Republicans 37.12%, and Libertarians 1.1% So for the 53 seats, the top 32(31.9272 rounded to the nearest whole number) democrat, 20(19.67) republican, and 1(.583) libertarian votegetters win.

Not only does it stop the gerrymandering, but it suddenly gives third parties a fighting chance.
Yeah, but the small towns won't be represented fairly!! Big city folks will get everything...

 
The AZ case was also kind of nuts because the constitution explicitly stated that the re districting could only be done by the legislature. I have no idea how that was permitted.
Did you read the opinion? They explain that "legislature" didn't mean a specific lawmaking body at the time the state constitution was written. The people that passed the referendum are the legislature.
Well, no I haven't seen it pop up anywhere but I will be glad to look at it. - However, legislature does mean legislature.

 
I think we should do away with the representative democracy all together. It originated when a representative had to get on a horse and ride to Washington to represent their constituents. Now everyone is pretty connected & can vote on the internet.

 
Personally, I think we should get rid of all districts and go to more of a representative democracy for each state. Split out the seats based on total party votes.

Example: California has 53 districts. Using the last presidential elections as an example, where Democrats made up 60.24% of the vote, Republicans 37.12%, and Libertarians 1.1% So for the 53 seats, the top 32(31.9272 rounded to the nearest whole number) democrat, 20(19.67) republican, and 1(.583) libertarian votegetters win.

Not only does it stop the gerrymandering, but it suddenly gives third parties a fighting chance.
Yeah, but the small towns won't be represented fairly!! Big city folks will get everything...
I disagree. In fact, they will probably get even more representation. Remember, in this situation, not only are republicans and democrats competing against each other, they're competing amongst themselves. If I'm Democrat # 32 or Republican #20, I want to do everything I can do for those small towns so they continue to vote for me, not just to make sure my party seat isn't lost, but that if a seat is lost, I'd now be Democrat #31 or Republican #19 or better.

But let's be honest, congress isn't really about helping the people in the district they "serve" anymore. It's all about the big national picture. How many people from a party can you get in to help/hinder the president.

 
Personally, I think we should get rid of all districts and go to more of a representative democracy for each state. Split out the seats based on total party votes.

Example: California has 53 districts. Using the last presidential elections as an example, where Democrats made up 60.24% of the vote, Republicans 37.12%, and Libertarians 1.1% So for the 53 seats, the top 32(31.9272 rounded to the nearest whole number) democrat, 20(19.67) republican, and 1(.583) libertarian votegetters win.

Not only does it stop the gerrymandering, but it suddenly gives third parties a fighting chance.
Yeah, but the small towns won't be represented fairly!! Big city folks will get everything...
I disagree. In fact, they will probably get even more representation. Remember, in this situation, not only are republicans and democrats competing against each other, they're competing amongst themselves. If I'm Democrat # 32 or Republican #20, I want to do everything I can do for those small towns so they continue to vote for me, not just to make sure my party seat isn't lost, but that if a seat is lost, I'd now be Democrat #31 or Republican #19 or better.

But let's be honest, congress isn't really about helping the people in the district they "serve" anymore. It's all about the big national picture. How many people from a party can you get in to help/hinder the president.
My post was slightly sarcastic.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.

 
Get rid of districts all together. People move around. People live in one geographic area, work in a second, and shop, eat, and spend money and pay sales taxes in several more. My interests are vastly different from my neighbors.

Instead, choose representatives by petition. Put all candidates online and let people choose one guy to back. I could have the congressman I want to represent me be from Vermont or Oregon, I don't care, if he matches my interests. Top however many guys get into office. If their support drops too low, they're out.
Getting into Heinlein territory now (which is fun). I support districts in a combination of geography and age. A 21-year-old doesn't want the same congressman as my 86-year-old father.

 
Dudes, simple parameters. An algorithm to devise districts with the smallest cumulative borders while keeping the populations of the district within a 5% range.

To quote a fellow at another board: "Computers are how we get chit done these days."
And if that 5% range keeps leaning a certain way?
Dude.

I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Careful now, dems fightin' words to some 'round these parts.
I would enjoy that fight.
I'm always intrigues by the notion that mere mortals were somehow made omniscient for a brief period of time during the mid-late 18th century. Those know-it-alls really made life fun for the rest of us small brained folk.
This.
 
Partisan gerrymandering has long been a scourge on the American political landscape ...

... And despite a growing Latino population, Latinos were effectively locked out of new opportunities for power.

By contrast, the first commission-drawn congressional map successfully increased the number of competitive congressional districts in the state from five percent to 18 percent, while increasing Latino representation.
I have a question.

If the goal is to eliminate partisan gerrymandering (ok, on board) how do you permit racial classifications to draw districts when at least two "racial" or ethnic groups, blacks and Hispanics, are in one instance typically going to vote 95% Democratic and in the other around 70% Democratic?

By drawing borders to meet racial representation goals aren't you automatically creating partisan boundaries in and of itself?

 
The entire process is inherently biased. There is no way to change that. The debate is simply over which biases are better/worse.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
That's not true though.

Let's say there's an area that is supposed to be be given 5 congressional seats. Now, as it works out the Party A vs Party B layout for that area looks like this:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

So in that area it's 60% party A and 40% party B. Now let's see how that can be split up, each color representing a seat.

Option 1:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Now that looks pretty good. Works out perfectly to 3 seats for Party A and 2 seats for Party B. But what if the computer went horizontal?

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Ruh-roh. Since Party A has a 60% majority in each of those districts, Party A has all 5 seats and poor party B gets shut out. Yet in both examples, the population and size for each district remained exactly the same.

In fact, with a little variance on border size you could get something like this.

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

And Party B which has a minority in that area has a majority of the seats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
:shrug:

I'd argue that in many circumstances, those criteria would be silly. For example, why split a township if that can easily be avoided? Natural borders (e.g. rivers) also make sense in many circumstances.

 
^^ Or even a map where party B gets 3 seats vs party A 2 seats

A A A B B
A A A B B
A A A B B
A A A B B
A A A B B

edit: posted after ryderr's edit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
That's not true though.

Let's say there's an area that is supposed to be be given 5 congressional seats. Now, as it works out the Party A vs Party B layout for that area looks like this:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

So in that area it's 60% party A and 40% party B. Now let's see how that can be split up, each color representing a seat.

Option 1:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Now that looks pretty good. Works out perfectly to 3 seats for Party A and 2 seats for Party B. But what if the computer went horizontal?

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Ruh-roh. Since Party A has a 60% majority in each of those districts, Party A has all 5 seats and poor party B gets shut out. Yet in both examples, the population and size for each district remained exactly the same.

In fact, with a little variance on border size you could get something like this.

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

And Party B which has a minority in that area has a majority of the seats.
I have no idea what this means but it's fantastic.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
That's not true though.

Let's say there's an area that is supposed to be be given 5 congressional seats. Now, as it works out the Party A vs Party B layout for that area looks like this:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

So in that area it's 60% party A and 40% party B. Now let's see how that can be split up, each color representing a seat.

Option 1:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Now that looks pretty good. Works out perfectly to 3 seats for Party A and 2 seats for Party B. But what if the computer went horizontal?

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Ruh-roh. Since Party A has a 60% majority in each of those districts, Party A has all 5 seats and poor party B gets shut out. Yet in both examples, the population and size for each district remained exactly the same.
A state with five congressional districts and a statewide 60-40 ratio doesn't have a 60-40 ratio in every part of the state. There are some huge number (millions?) of combinations of districts, what are the odds that all five districts will end up 60-40? Is there any state with multiple districts that has that kind of even distribution?

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
:shrug:

I'd argue that in many circumstances, those criteria would be silly. For example, why split a township if that can easily be avoided? Natural borders (e.g. rivers) also make sense in many circumstances.
No new precincts would have to be created. The program would evaluate using existing precincts. Apologies if I muddied the waters with the use of the term "districts" in two different applications.

 
I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
That's not true though.

Let's say there's an area that is supposed to be be given 5 congressional seats. Now, as it works out the Party A vs Party B layout for that area looks like this:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

So in that area it's 60% party A and 40% party B. Now let's see how that can be split up, each color representing a seat.

Option 1:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Now that looks pretty good. Works out perfectly to 3 seats for Party A and 2 seats for Party B. But what if the computer went horizontal?

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Ruh-roh. Since Party A has a 60% majority in each of those districts, Party A has all 5 seats and poor party B gets shut out. Yet in both examples, the population and size for each district remained exactly the same.
A state with five congressional districts and a statewide 60-40 ratio doesn't have a 60-40 ratio in every part of the state. There are some huge number (millions?) of combinations of districts, what are the odds that all five districts will end up 60-40? Is there any state with multiple districts that has that kind of even distribution?
Now see, you're moving the goal posts. You said there could only be one answer. That is obviously not true. Is it a simplified example? Sure. But it shows what can happen. A computer can come come up with multiple answers, and those answers can have different outcomes as far as which party is in the majority. So at that point we now have Republicans and Democrats arguing for which computer result to use, which is basically a form of gerrymandering.

 
Then you'll just have complaints that the existing precincts were unfair to begin with, wouldn't you?
Wut

I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
That's not true though.

Let's say there's an area that is supposed to be be given 5 congressional seats. Now, as it works out the Party A vs Party B layout for that area looks like this:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

So in that area it's 60% party A and 40% party B. Now let's see how that can be split up, each color representing a seat.

Option 1:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Now that looks pretty good. Works out perfectly to 3 seats for Party A and 2 seats for Party B. But what if the computer went horizontal?

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Ruh-roh. Since Party A has a 60% majority in each of those districts, Party A has all 5 seats and poor party B gets shut out. Yet in both examples, the population and size for each district remained exactly the same.
A state with five congressional districts and a statewide 60-40 ratio doesn't have a 60-40 ratio in every part of the state. There are some huge number (millions?) of combinations of districts, what are the odds that all five districts will end up 60-40? Is there any state with multiple districts that has that kind of even distribution?
Now see, you're moving the goal posts. You said there could only be one answer. That is obviously not true. Is it a simplified example? Sure. But it shows what can happen. A computer can come come up with multiple answers, and those answers can have different outcomes as far as which party is in the majority. So at that point we now have Republicans and Democrats arguing for which computer result to use, which is basically a form of gerrymandering.
There's only one forking answer to the parameters unless two of the combinations have exactly the same cumulative mileage around its borders. I don't care what the partisan outcomes are. The whole point of the exercise is to let those chips fall where they will and get the ###### politicking out of it.

I'm back to believing you've suffered a recent head injury.

 
Then you'll just have complaints that the existing precincts were unfair to begin with, wouldn't you?
Wut

I think it would be a mark of our progress as a nation if we removed this power from legislatures and turned it over to computer programs. The power has been abused and turned solely into a mechanism for providing safe seats in Congress.

And I don't care what the founders thought about the issue.
Someone is writing those computer programs. Not sure that solves much.
. This isn't like a voting machine that is difficult to verify.
Not sure I understand. The program will spit out borders, and both sides will complain that the borders are unfair. They'll then claim that the criteria used to create the borders were unfair to begin with. Maybe I should rephrase... The computer program needs to be fed criteria to determine the districts. Unless both sides can agree on what those criteria should be, nothing gets solved.
The computer needs two criteria, both of which are solely math-based. The smallest cumulative borders with adjacent districts within X percent range in population (5%, 3%, 2%, I don't care). The program will only print out one answer.
That's not true though.

Let's say there's an area that is supposed to be be given 5 congressional seats. Now, as it works out the Party A vs Party B layout for that area looks like this:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

So in that area it's 60% party A and 40% party B. Now let's see how that can be split up, each color representing a seat.

Option 1:

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Now that looks pretty good. Works out perfectly to 3 seats for Party A and 2 seats for Party B. But what if the computer went horizontal?

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

A A A B B

Ruh-roh. Since Party A has a 60% majority in each of those districts, Party A has all 5 seats and poor party B gets shut out. Yet in both examples, the population and size for each district remained exactly the same.
A state with five congressional districts and a statewide 60-40 ratio doesn't have a 60-40 ratio in every part of the state. There are some huge number (millions?) of combinations of districts, what are the odds that all five districts will end up 60-40? Is there any state with multiple districts that has that kind of even distribution?
Now see, you're moving the goal posts. You said there could only be one answer. That is obviously not true. Is it a simplified example? Sure. But it shows what can happen. A computer can come come up with multiple answers, and those answers can have different outcomes as far as which party is in the majority. So at that point we now have Republicans and Democrats arguing for which computer result to use, which is basically a form of gerrymandering.
There's only one forking answer to the parameters unless two of the combinations have exactly the same cumulative mileage around its borders. I don't care what the partisan outcomes are. The whole point of the exercise is to let those chips fall where they will and get the ###### politicking out of it.

I'm back to believing you've suffered a recent head injury.
Man, I prove you wrong and you resort to insults. Such a shame.

 
The Hill

Deep in minority, Dems look to redistricting for hope

Facing long odds at retaking the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats are pushing hard for redistricting reform as a potential route back into control of the lower chamber.

The legislation is not new –– many Democrats, including Pelosi, have been advocating for independent redistricting panels for at least a decade –– nor is it going anywhere in a Congress led by Republicans who are benefitting handsomely under the current process.

But Pelosi’s co-sponsorship of this year’s reform proposal marks a rare move for a party leader who seldom lends an official signature to individual bills.

Her formal endorsement is both an escalation of support for non-partisan redistricting and an indication that Democratic leaders want to rein in gerrymandering and lay the groundwork for reform heading into the 2016 elections.

It may also be a tacit acknowledgement that the current map gives the Democrats little chance of regaining the Speaker's gavel before the next national census, in 2020.

Party leaders have repeatedly noted that the Democrats won the popular vote in 2012, even as Republicans retained a commanding House majority. Redrawing the map, in that context, is seen as crucial to winning back the chamber.

“Democrats are fixated on the point that, if districts had been more on the level, we would have won back the House in 2012,” said one former House Democrat. “So gauging the map becomes an imperative.”

The former lawmaker was quick to concede that Republican leaders would never consider redistricting reform for that very reason. But highlighting the issue shows Democratic voters that party leaders aren't accepting minority status without a fight.

“It does create ballast, and it probably helps to raise money. It shows the donor base that we're really trying to win,” the Democrat said. “We're not going to win the House [in 2016], but it could get a lot closer. And we could win the Senate.”

Sponsored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the legislation would require states to establish “an independent, multi-party redistricting commission” chosen randomly from a qualified pool. The group would be charged with drawing congressional districts that must be “geographically contiguous; have boundaries that minimize the division of any community of interest, municipality, county, or neighborhood; and be geographically compact.”

A similar bill, sponsored by Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), mandates comparable commissions, but members would be appointed directly by the state leaders from each party.

Lofgren has introduced various versions of her bill in each Congress since 2005, but support has peaked this year with 37 co-sponsors, and Democratic leaders have played up the proposal by including it in the party's “good governance” package.

Democratic operatives say the new prominence hinges on numerous factors, not least the 2010 election route when Democrats lost 63 seats and the House majority. In the years leading up to that election, national GOP leaders and outside conservative groups had launched a concerted effort to win the state-house seats that empowered the Republicans to redraw many state maps in their favor.

The dynamics have not been overlooked by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in the race for the White House, who urged supporters Friday to re-focus on winning state seats.

“In 2010, Republicans routed us on redistricting. Not because they won Congress, but because they won state legislatures. And look where we are now,” the former secretary of State told a crowd gathered in Minneapolis for the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) annual summer meeting.

“We can't ever let that happen again. It's time to rebuild our party from the ground up, and if you make me the nominee, that's exactly what I will do.”

Licy DoCanto, head of The DoCanto Group, a public policy consulting firm, said it's not unusual or surprising that the Democrats, the overall losers of the last redistricting effort, would emerge now as the loudest voices in favor of federal reforms.

“When you're on the receiving end, you go out and look for a way to change the process,” DoCanto said. “A non-partisan redistricting process can be a partisan tool, depending on how you shape it.”

Reform supporters argue that years of partisan redistricting has led to entrenched gridlock on Capitol Hill by creating districts –– represented by both parties –– with strong base ideologies that discourage political compromise. Independent commissions would go a long way towards breaking the gridlock, they say.

“Constituents want them to take a strong stance on one side or the other,” said a former Democratic leadership aide. “[Gridlock] has been a real and probably unanticipated effect.”

Without action in Congress, dozens of states have stepped in to establish independent redistricting commissions on their own. Supporters of the shift won a huge victory in June when the Supreme Court upheld the creation of such a panel in Arizona –– a decision that has only amplified the calls for Congress to adopt federal guidelines.

“With the Court’s decision and the clear public sentiment, it behooves the Congress to pass legislation setting national standards for state redistricting commissions,” Pelosi said in praising the ruling.

Still, the reform push is hardly a strictly partisan one. Indeed, many Democrats –– including some minority lawmakers in the south –– have benefitted from the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts, which in places carved out safely Democratic seats amid a sea of red districts.

Those lawmakers are “hesitant to embrace” sweeping changes that could threaten their reelections, according to the Democratic leadership aide.

“There are some who benefit significantly even as it runs against the larger Democratic Party,” the aide said.

The former lawmaker echoed that message, saying Pelosi's official endorsement is no guarantee that all her troops are behind her.

“I think the leadership has evolved on this. I don't know if individual members have,” the Democrat said. “I had a great district, and if there was some commission that was going to carve that up and make it more competitive, I wouldn't have been happy with that.”
 
Doesn't this really just shift who's doing the gerrymandering?
We just need to find someone we really trust, and then give them all the power.

In related news, the most important thing in life is honesty and fair-dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

 
While I'm on board with revamping how districts are drawn, I just don't see how ANY solution couldn't be gamed by either side. What we're talking about here is just a finer level of gerrymandering.

Who is behind these coalitions or "groups of voters" that are putting redistricting questions on the ballot? Isn't that itself a form of gerrymandering? My guess is these "groups of voters" are typically themselves all voting one way and highly doubt they are bi-partisan. All i have to do is build up a big enough "coalition" every time to get what I want. The ground game for each party already has the resources and money do this under the guise of "just a bunch of voters". Don't like a map the GOP drew? Well I'll just get my "just a bunch of voters" together and force them to redraw by going to court and getting what I want. Vice-versa for the Dem drawn maps.

You can manipulate software by feeding it the parameters that will give you a better outcome or a ####tier outcome for the side you're not rooting for. And who get's to decide what the parameters that are fed into the computer in the 1st place? Who is writing the program?

Drawing districts by race (as saints said above) is itself a form of gerrymandering since they almost always vote Democrat.

Who get's to decide where the natural boundaries of a district are? Maybe I don't think that the city cut off by three rivers is the natural boundary. Maybe it's the city and the Hispanic district on the other side of the river?

So, doesn't matter how it's done, there will ALWAYS be one side complaining and saying "it's not fair" and trying to force things to go their way instead. Should it be revamped and made more fai

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top