# Gerrymander Art



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Pretty!





The infamous Donald Duck kicking Goofy congressional district in eastern Pennsylvania.


Gerrymandering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Interesting political experiment.

​
When the thing that's needed to hold power in a democracy is a government of the extremists, for the extremists and by the extremists.  



`​


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Seen a pretty one?  Post it here!


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Ugly works too!!  Top 5 Ugliest Districts: Partisan Gerrymandering 101 : Roll Call Special Features Election Preview





Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gerrymander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Gerrymandering has been *ruled unconstitutional* in a court of law?!?
​


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2013)

Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Pretty!
> 
> ​
> The infamous Donald Duck kicking Goofy congressional district in eastern Pennsylvania.
> ...



The VRA mandates gerrymandering, and was upheld by the Supreme court. Maybe you should stop blaming the other side for things you support.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 10, 2013)

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.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 10, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?



On the news, I'm hearing that the few real pubs left in congress won't vote honestly because they're afraid the tee potters will win primaries. 

I suspect that fox et al will be telling the rw's not to vote in favor of getting rid of the blatant corruption. Watch for it. Limbaugh, Beck and the rest of the rw worms will be telling you how to vote and it won't be in favor of returning to honest elections. 

Our elections will forever more be bought and paid for by such as the Koch bros.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 10, 2013)

When the radical left agrees that all Americans are equal regardless of their skin color it will pretty much end the Gerrymandering system.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

​


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?



One can hope, Brother.  One can hope.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

whitehall said:


> 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!


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty!
> ...



 

What the hell is a 'VRA'?
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Which explains why California, which is not only dominated by Democrats, but actually has a citizens committee that draws the maps, doesn't have any gerrymandering.

Either that, or you are a drooling idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > When the radical left agrees that all Americans are equal regardless of their skin color it will pretty much end the Gerrymandering system.
> ...



Illinois 17 is considered a textbook example of gerrymandering taken to the extreme, it wasn't designed by, or for, Republicans.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Congress has a 19% approval rating and yet 90% get reelected.   Gerrymandering works.  It's corruption behind open doors.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



You don't know about the VRA?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Ooooo you found a GREAT example of Democrat Gerrymandering...

So fucking what?  Doesn't mean Gerrymandering shouldn't be eliminated from the political vocabulary and it doesn't absolve the state-level Republicans and Democrats of their responsibility for the low approval ratings in Congress and the current extremist-driven mess we're in.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 10, 2013)

Gerrymandering should be unconstitutional, it violates the principles of a Republic/Democracy


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Not by the acronym out of the blue like that.  

If you'd be so kind, could you point out the paragraph where the Voting Rights Act 'mandates' Gerrymandering?  I couldn't find it in the link you provided.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Gerrymandering should be unconstitutional, it violates the principles of a Republic/Democracy



According to some, it already is and the current violations are treasonous acts.

That information and $4 will get you a coffee at Starbucks...
  WYGD?​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Never said it did, did I? I just object to your pretending you are smart enough to prove that one party is worse than the other.

By the way, Illinois 17 is Republican right now.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

My point is that the Republicans are the current poster children for _successful_ Gerrymandering.

Just 'cause the Democrats are justifiably jealous doesn't mean Gerry shouldn't be eliminated.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Look closer.

Lublin, D.: The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> My point is that the Republicans are the current poster children for _successful_ Gerrymandering.
> 
> Just 'cause the Democrats are justifiably jealous doesn't mean Gerry shouldn't be eliminated.



They learned from the Democrats.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



California is leading the way back to fair elections, and their politics reflects it.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that the Republicans are the current poster children for _successful_ Gerrymandering.
> ...



Well the TEA Party Wing is living proof that the student has become the master, that's fer damn sure!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



They are? Can you give specific examples?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Still not seeing it.  Copy and paste something...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The TEA Party wasn't around the last time districts were drawn, were they?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Their political evolution started in about 2010 if you ask me.  Culminating about now with the shutdown, if I'm a decent judge of history.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 10, 2013)

Here's the text of the Voting Rights Act.

Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

Help me find the Gerrymandering Mandate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Their political evolution started in about 2010 if you ask me.  Culminating about now with the shutdown, if I'm a decent judge of history.



Yes, and the maps were redrawn after the census. since they were barely getting into office then,m blaming them for the mess is like blaming Bush for the current economy.

Then again, you do blame Bush for this, so I can see why you are confused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 10, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Here's the text of the Voting Rights Act.
> 
> Welcome to OurDocuments.gov
> 
> Help me find the Gerrymandering Mandate.



Help me teach you how to think.

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2011/06/01/voting-rights-act-i-was-wrong-about-racial-gerrymandering/`


----------



## Impenitent (Oct 11, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Pretty!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Genuine hand-carved Republican Congressional Districts,

 No two alike!

Only $1,000,000 each!

No background check!


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Their political evolution started in about 2010 if you ask me.  Culminating about now with the shutdown, if I'm a decent judge of history.
> ...



Sure I blame Bush.  And I blame Bush, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Obama and Ford.  They're all responsible for perpetuating the Military-Industrial Complex that spent this country in to extremism.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the text of the Voting Rights Act.
> ...



QW,  you said that the Voting Rights Act "mandated Gerrymandering".

Point to where it says that in the text of the act, or withdraw the claim.  

Simple shit, Bro'.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 11, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Pretty!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Hee hee.  Donald's got antlers too.

I know that area very well having grown up there.  It'd be interesting to put this up against a similar map drawn on income levels.  My guess is they'd end up nearly identical.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 11, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...




Ruh roh...


----------



## Nyvin (Oct 11, 2013)

Rabbit doing jump on a skateboard


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 11, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



It mandates it because the government says it does. Justice views racial gerrymandering as payback for previous districts drawn by Democrats to eliminate the possibility of blacks getting elected to office. It works the same way the Civil Rights Act works on affirmative action, it ain't in the law, but you can't enforce the law without it. If I have to explain that t again I will place you in the rdean category of posters, is. hopelessly clueless and blindly idiotic.

Redistricting Criteria: The Voting Rights Act - Public Mapping Project


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

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.


----------



## daveman (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > When the radical left agrees that all Americans are equal regardless of their skin color it will pretty much end the Gerrymandering system.
> ...


Ahem:



daveman said:


> 16 of the 21 most-gerrymandered Congressional districts are Democratic.
> 
> Let me guess:  It's different -- somehow -- it just is!! when Democrats do it.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

Of course there will be districts that are Gerrymandered to be democratic districts, Dave!  

How do you think they create a republican advantage?  It's all about forcing the democrats to waste as many of their votes as possible on the same candidates.

At the risk of repeating myself, about 1.5 million more votes were cast for democratic house candidates last election than for republicans, and yet the republicans control the house.

That's the proof of the overall success of the Republicans over the Democrats in the Gerrymander Wars.

`​


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

The net result of the politicians being involved the process of drawing their own political districts is the extremist tail that's currently wagging the D.C. dog.

This is NOT taxation with fair representation.


----------



## daveman (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Of course there will be districts that are Gerrymandered to be democratic districts, Dave!
> 
> How do you think they create a republican advantage?  It's all about forcing the democrats to waste as many of their votes as possible on the same candidates.
> 
> ...


So, Democrats gerrymander districts...and it's the GOP's fault.

Ummm...okay.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> 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.



Not true, nut thanks for ignoring reality. I have not one time in this thread supported any type of gerrymandering, all I did was point out your hypocrisy in criticizing it when you actually support it. Now that you have finally admit that you do support gerrymandering, if it does something you like, you have lost in this debate.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there will be districts that are Gerrymandered to be democratic districts, Dave!
> ...



Ummmm... I've said from the beginning - both of them do it, republicans are just better at it.

Math doesn't lie.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


​Link to a post where I support Gerrymandering and I'll kiss your ass on the 50 yard line of any game you buy tickets for.

And, if it makes a difference, I never accused you of supporting it, unless you happen to be a politician.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 12, 2013)

The drawing of districts needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians.  Every state should move to an independent redistricting commission to draw them out made up of state residents who are not in elected office, employed by the government or any political party, or a member of any political party's committees.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Are you telling me the post where you said racial gerrymandering makes sense wasn't your post?


----------



## daveman (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


Most districts are gerrymandered Dem -- but the GOP keeps winning?

Looks like Dems are pretty damn incompetent, aren't they?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




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.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Sometimes.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > When the radical left agrees that all Americans are equal regardless of their skin color it will pretty much end the Gerrymandering system.
> ...




How do you reach that conclusion? It just means that democrats tend to live in high density urban areas and republicans do not. It is exactly the effect you would expect to get using a randomly drawn set of district boundaries.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 12, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 12, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Tell me something, where were those votes cast? Did they come out of New York, California, Massachusetts, and other stats where Democrats won big? Are we supposed to throw some of the votes from California into Arkansas in order to make the results more to your liking? Will you end up complaining pathetically if that ends up with Republicans winning seats in California?


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



I was making a point about statistics. Don't really give a shit about what ever else is bothering you.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Oct 12, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> 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.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?
> ...



Randomly draw the boundaries with only two criteria, minimum district border length and the prescribed population number. It would take a computer about a millisecond.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Oct 12, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The drawing of districts needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians.  Every state should move to an independent redistricting commission to draw them out made up of state residents who are not in elected office, employed by the government or any political party, or a member of any political party's committees.



It wouldn't take more than a few years before that committee of "district drawers" becomes as political a position as any other - and we end up with just as ridiculous districts, with even less transparency than there is now.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Oct 12, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It's not possible to "randomly" draw districts like that.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You should just hold up a sign saying "I have no clue how gerrymandering works"

Fuck, you're dumb


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I am pretty sure it is possible. I have not seen the specific problem addressed, but it looks like a simulated annealing type problem, similar to the 'traveling salesman' problem where a salesman needs to know the route between some random set of cities which minimizes the distance he goes. If I write the code, do you think you can sell it for me?


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 12, 2013)

For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race.  It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.

Take a look at North Carolina's 2012 results for the House, you dumb fucks.

All Daveman did was prove the GOP is by far a greater offender.


----------



## daveman (Oct 12, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


Why would I hold up a sign with a lie on it?


----------



## daveman (Oct 12, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race.  It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.
> 
> Take a look at North Carolina's 2012 results for the House, you dumb fucks.
> 
> All Daveman did was prove the GOP is by far a greater offender.


I'm sure you enjoy believing that.  But then, you believe lots of stupid shit.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Oct 12, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



You know, I did a quick google search about this and ended up in discussions of mathematics and computer science that went way over my head.

So you could be right. It's not a trivial problem to solve though.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > For the retards (Daveman) in the room, gerrymandering is not about packing a district with an overwhelming majority of voters from your own party to win one race.  It's about packing an overwhelming majority of voters for the opposition party into one district so THEY win that one race by a huge margin which allows your party to win multiple districts 55-45.
> ...



And he doubles down on stupid! 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

He really doesn't get it.

What a maroon.

Ha!


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Yeah, but can you sell it? If the DNC thinks the RNC has it, and the RNC thinks the DNC has it, they will throw millions at us....


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Oct 12, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



 

Doubtful. For all the Party folks I know, it'd be like trying to sell them a lit grenade.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 13, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



I quoted the wrong post, my bad.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 13, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think we'd get consensus on ending the practice?
> ...



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


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Oh... then that must have been meant for AVG-Joe.

So AVG-Joe, what is your reply?  chuckle


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 13, 2013)

It works state by state.



> In Pennsylvania, 70,659 more votes were cast for democratic candidates than for republican candidates, yet the state is represented in congress by 13 republicans and 5 democrats.
> 
> Graphic shows how Republican gerrymandering in PA has interfered with your right to be heard in DC - Democratic Underground


Math don't lie    Gerrymandering works!​


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 13, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> It works state by state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gerrymandering happens, obviously, but the statistic being quoted is meaningless. We would get similar numbers without gerrymandering due only to the population distributions of voting patterns.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 13, 2013)

Similar?!?  

We're going to have to agree to disagree about that prediction, percy.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 13, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> 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.


----------



## daveman (Oct 13, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


And now for a little dose of reality:

Are the Democrats still at a disadvantage in redistricting? ? The Monkey Cage

To what extent are Democrats inherently disadvantaged in congressional elections because of where they live?  This was a hot topic of conversation just after the 2012 congressional elections, when the Democrats won a majority of the popular vote but a distinct minority of the seats in the House of Representatives.  The subject has recently resurfaced in public debate, and the issues are important enough that they deserve some consideration.

First, some background.  Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden (hereafter, C&R) have developed a computer program that draws thousands of simulated districts using precinct-level data and a handful of systematic criteria. They then compare the actual redistricting plan to the simulated ones.  If they dont differ substantially, then any bias in the district lines cannot be blamed on gerrymandering.  Or so goes the argument.

This method has attracted considerable attention because it appears to show that Democrats suffer because they are concentrated in urban areas and waste votes on big wins, not because Republicans have drawn the lines that way.  In other words, Democrats are unintentionally gerrymandered.  C&R are not the only ones to make this claim (for a recent example, see Nate Silvers post here), but those who make it commonly cite this research.​


----------



## daveman (Oct 13, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Most states have split control over redistricting.

All About Redistricting -- Who draws the lines


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 13, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



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


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 13, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Similar?!?
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2013)

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


----------



## Pogo (Oct 13, 2013)

asterism said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



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 (Oct 14, 2013)

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


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 14, 2013)

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 (Oct 23, 2013)

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


----------



## AvgGuyIA (May 24, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Missourian (May 24, 2014)




----------



## AvgGuyIA (May 24, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > When the radical left agrees that all Americans are equal regardless of their skin color it will pretty much end the Gerrymandering system.
> ...


that's because they are concentrated in urban ghettos.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (May 24, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> 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 (May 24, 2014)

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
> ...




That would take care of the problem for good.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)




----------



## Missourian (May 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> 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
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


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





I never said the Federal Government should do the redistricting. The states should, but using a supercomputer, as I indicated.

Learn to read for discernment.


----------



## Missourian (May 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



"With redistricting done* at a national level* with a Super-Computer"


Learn to remember what you posted.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...





Meaning, all 50 states do it, not just a select few.

Learn to read for comprehension.

Or go pack your beloved militia munitions and wait for the ZOG to come getcha!!!


----------



## Missourian (May 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



This may come as a shock to you,  but words have meaning.

"At the National Level" means (drum roll please) at the National Level. 

Whatever meaning you WISH it had conveyed is meaningless.

If you are unable to use English to clearly communicate your ideas,  that's your problem...don't take it out on those of us who understand what "national level" actually means.

IOW the clarity of your posts is your problem until such time the rest of us develop psychic abilities to determine what you REALLY meant.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




Oh, my, yet another butthurt Rightie who is unwilling to discern, cuz he thinks the word "national" may be ebbil.

Carry on with our fine talk on Gerrymandering, which is indeed the topic of the OP. I presented a solution and you went all Bilderberg over it.


----------



## whitehall (May 24, 2014)

The only time democrats complain about Gerrymandering is when they lose the majority. The N.C. district 12 was created by the 1992 democrat majority. It remains as the most notorious example of Gerrymandering in US history stretching a hundred miles and barely wider than a highway lane in some areas.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)

whitehall said:


> The only time democrats complain about Gerrymandering is when they lose the majority. The N.C. district 12 was created by the 1992 democrat majority. It remains as the most notorious example of Gerrymandering in US history stretching a hundred miles and barely wider than a highway lane in some areas.




Which is exactly why a Supercomputer, programmed only with population data (not demographic data) and geographical data, should do the redistricting, completely independent of all political parties.

It's really that simple.

Because redistricting should only be about:

a.) simple math
b.) basic geography

In this way, neither the Democrats not the Republicans would even be able to tip the scales again.


----------



## Missourian (May 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




I gave you my opinion of the proposal you presented.

You got upset.

You continue to be upset.

I am posting facts,  you are posting personal attacks.

I'll tell you what,  you go on believing whatever you wish to believe.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




See post 107.


----------



## Missourian (May 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The only time democrats complain about Gerrymandering is when they lose the majority. The N.C. district 12 was created by the 1992 democrat majority. It remains as the most notorious example of Gerrymandering in US history stretching a hundred miles and barely wider than a highway lane in some areas.
> ...




GIGO.

The most powerful super-computer in the world is totally dependent on inputted data...where is that data coming from?


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




Oh, that's simple:

from the US census bureau, whose job it is to take a census, per US Constitution.
And the data from that census goes down to the local level.

BTW, the political parties that draw those maps right now use that same data. Only, they also use demographic data and electoral history data to tip the scales.


Accurate geographical maps of each state can come from a number of sources, all of which are very good.

A county map of each state would also be not a bad idea, for it's not a terrible idea to, when possible, have CD boundaries run concurrent with county boundaries. Is not a must, but also not a terrible idea.


I give an easy "for instance".

You have a state of 5.4 million people, with a river dividing most of the state, and approximately 2.7 million people on one side, 2.7 million on the other. That state has 8 CDs, so logically, ca 4 of them would be on on side of the river, 4 on the other, with boundaries that are as smooth as possible.


The state I am talking about:  Minnesota

A supercomputer, armed only with population data + geographical data and programmed to create a CD no larger than ca 736,000 people would be able to draw boundaries completely irrespective of

a.) race
b.) creed
c.) electoral history.

The would be a complete re-set for the congressional map of the United States for any state with more than one CD.


It really is that simple. It's about simple math and simple geography.


----------



## natstew (May 25, 2014)

My County District is Gerrymandered to guarantee a black gets on the County Commission.
 If it was Gerrymandered to guarantee a white get's on the County Commission it's be called racism.


----------

