Redistricting Left To The States By The Supreme Court

[martybegan]

The urban/rural density split makes that difficult to do while still maintaining equal population in each district.

Not if you adhere to an appropriate mathematical formula. Besides, voting by mail is making physical barriers irrelevant.

I have other issues with voting by mail. as well as early voting. Sorry, but unless you have a valid reason, show up on election day.

What mathematical formula? Who makes the formula? You move the manipulation from people to computers.

As long as you vote, why does it matter?

Why make it difficult when you don’t have to?

Because there is a difference between voting, and effective voting.

At the Presidential level, as a Republican in NY, my vote is ineffective. However I realize this and accept it.

For House votes however, I have an issue with this because my House rep is my direct representative to the federal government. Gross gerrymandering in NY would be to suppress my vote for sure.

The Feds, however, are not the ones mandated to figure this out. The States on their own have to decide if they are OK with this or not.

The bottom line is I am willing to accept a low level of shenanigans when it comes to districting, but not this:

 

[jwoodie]

I have other issues with voting by mail. as well as early voting. Sorry, but unless you have a valid reason, show up on election day.

What mathematical formula? Who makes the formula? You move the manipulation from people to computers.

Take up your issues with voting by mail somewhere else. It is a FACT.

A fixed mathematical formula does not "manipulate." People do. Which do you prefer?

 

[martybegan]

I have other issues with voting by mail. as well as early voting. Sorry, but unless you have a valid reason, show up on election day.

What mathematical formula? Who makes the formula? You move the manipulation from people to computers.

Take up your issues with voting by mail somewhere else. It is a FACT.

A fixed mathematical formula does not "manipulate." People do. Which do you prefer?

No it is a current CONDITION. It can be changed just as easily as it was allowed. I have no issue with absentee ballots, but people able to go to a polling place should go to a polling place.

A formula does what it is supposed to do, the manipulation happens in the programming of the formula.

Didn't you ever watch Superman III?

 

[Dekster]

And where do you go from there? Do you create a starburst pattern, do you go north, go south? The starting point does matter, but the rest of the pattern matters more.

The starting point makes ALL the difference if it is immutable, like the geographic center of a state. From there, I would suggest a swirl pattern starting at due north, but that isn't as important as establishing a fixed formula that can't be adjusted for changing political considerations.

Great idea, but you obviously have not thought it through very well.

If anything a system should start with figuring out the population center of the State, then the # of districts, and work moving outside of that, using natural barriers (rivers) and man-made ones (major highways) as dividing lines.

Why not use the previously established subdivisions like counties?

The urban/rural density split makes that difficult to do while still maintaining equal population in each district.

But so does using population centers. If you concentrate as many people into say two districts out of 6 then that favors the GOP by 4 but if you divy up the population center among 6 districts, that potentially favors the DNC by 6 but makes it likely that suburban and rural parts of those districts do not have a voice because the center city controls the agenda in all 6. We saw this debate in Virginia. When they started focusing on rearranging some lines to make sure rural voters had a voice, the dems screamed gerrymandering because rural people also tend to be conservative, but why shouldn't rural voters have a voice and why should their voice and vote matter less than urban/blue votes? These are the kinds of issues that really there is no way to address. You just have to rip the bandaid off. I suspect this is why the SCOTUS finally weighed in and did so in the way it did. It doesn't want to have to hear 50 appeals a year every time a state moves a district line.

 

[martybegan]

The starting point makes ALL the difference if it is immutable, like the geographic center of a state. From there, I would suggest a swirl pattern starting at due north, but that isn't as important as establishing a fixed formula that can't be adjusted for changing political considerations.

Great idea, but you obviously have not thought it through very well.

If anything a system should start with figuring out the population center of the State, then the # of districts, and work moving outside of that, using natural barriers (rivers) and man-made ones (major highways) as dividing lines.

Why not use the previously established subdivisions like counties?

The urban/rural density split makes that difficult to do while still maintaining equal population in each district.

But so does using population centers. If you concentrate as many people into say two districts out of 6 then that favors the GOP by 4 but if you divy up the population center among 6 districts, that potentially favors the DNC by 6 but makes it likely that suburban and rural parts of those districts do not have a voice because the center city controls the agenda in all 6. We saw this debate in Virginia. When they started focusing on rearranging some lines to make sure rural voters had a voice, the dems screamed gerrymandering because rural people also tend to be conservative, but why shouldn't rural voters have a voice and why should their voice and vote matter less than urban/blue votes? These are the kinds of issues that really there is no way to address. You just have to rip the bandaid off. I suspect this is why the SCOTUS finally weighed in and did so in the way it did. It doesn't want to have to hear 50 appeals a year every time a state moves a district line.

I agree on why the Court did what it did. What now happens is the fights happen in the States themselves.

I think we have to differentiate between federal districts for the House, and State districts for their house(es). The Federal districts are set every 10 years, however depending on the State, the State level ones can be changed by the party in power (maybe?).

County lines can be part of the dividing process, but I still think center of population is the starting point, then natural barriers, then human derived lines/barriers.

 

[Dekster]

Great idea, but you obviously have not thought it through very well.

If anything a system should start with figuring out the population center of the State, then the # of districts, and work moving outside of that, using natural barriers (rivers) and man-made ones (major highways) as dividing lines.

Why not use the previously established subdivisions like counties?

The urban/rural density split makes that difficult to do while still maintaining equal population in each district.

But so does using population centers. If you concentrate as many people into say two districts out of 6 then that favors the GOP by 4 but if you divy up the population center among 6 districts, that potentially favors the DNC by 6 but makes it likely that suburban and rural parts of those districts do not have a voice because the center city controls the agenda in all 6. We saw this debate in Virginia. When they started focusing on rearranging some lines to make sure rural voters had a voice, the dems screamed gerrymandering because rural people also tend to be conservative, but why shouldn't rural voters have a voice and why should their voice and vote matter less than urban/blue votes? These are the kinds of issues that really there is no way to address. You just have to rip the bandaid off. I suspect this is why the SCOTUS finally weighed in and did so in the way it did. It doesn't want to have to hear 50 appeals a year every time a state moves a district line.

I agree on why the Court did what it did. What now happens is the fights happen in the States themselves.

I think we have to differentiate between federal districts for the House, and State districts for their house(es). The Federal districts are set every 10 years, however depending on the State, the State level ones can be changed by the party in power (maybe?).

County lines can be part of the dividing process, but I still think center of population is the starting point, then natural barriers, then human derived lines/barriers.

What is the "center of the population"? It it the biggest city? Is it the square mile with the most people living in it? That might be a little hard to pin down in a state like Virginia where you have 3 population centers--richmand, DC suburbs, and the Tidewater Area around VA Beach/Norfolk

 

[OKTexas]

It's about time the court realizes every issue is not the federal courts concern. Your thoughts?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday that partisan gerrymandering is “beyond the reach of the federal courts” represents a significant win for Illinois Democrats and a second legal blow for advocates of changing the way the state draws its political boundaries.

U.S. Supreme Court decision that puts partisan gerrymandering ‘beyond reach’ of federal courts a win for Illinois Democrats

.

States should be drawing boundaries by geography, not party. Period. The people should pick the party, not the other way around.

So what would you do with the court mandated affirmative action districts that guarantee a minority win?

.

 

[martybegan]

If anything a system should start with figuring out the population center of the State, then the # of districts, and work moving outside of that, using natural barriers (rivers) and man-made ones (major highways) as dividing lines.

Why not use the previously established subdivisions like counties?

The urban/rural density split makes that difficult to do while still maintaining equal population in each district.

But so does using population centers. If you concentrate as many people into say two districts out of 6 then that favors the GOP by 4 but if you divy up the population center among 6 districts, that potentially favors the DNC by 6 but makes it likely that suburban and rural parts of those districts do not have a voice because the center city controls the agenda in all 6. We saw this debate in Virginia. When they started focusing on rearranging some lines to make sure rural voters had a voice, the dems screamed gerrymandering because rural people also tend to be conservative, but why shouldn't rural voters have a voice and why should their voice and vote matter less than urban/blue votes? These are the kinds of issues that really there is no way to address. You just have to rip the bandaid off. I suspect this is why the SCOTUS finally weighed in and did so in the way it did. It doesn't want to have to hear 50 appeals a year every time a state moves a district line.

I agree on why the Court did what it did. What now happens is the fights happen in the States themselves.

I think we have to differentiate between federal districts for the House, and State districts for their house(es). The Federal districts are set every 10 years, however depending on the State, the State level ones can be changed by the party in power (maybe?).

County lines can be part of the dividing process, but I still think center of population is the starting point, then natural barriers, then human derived lines/barriers.

What is the "center of the population"? It it the biggest city? Is it the square mile with the most people living in it? That might be a little hard to pin down in a state like Virginia where you have 3 population centers--richmand, DC suburbs, and the Tidewater Area around VA Beach/Norfolk

It's actually a relatively simple calculation

Mean center of the United States population - Wikipedia

The difficulty comes from when you try to create districts of equal population based on said center, and the methods used to "go out" as well as create the dividing lines.

 

[OKTexas]

It's about time the court realizes every issue is not the federal courts concern. Your thoughts?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday that partisan gerrymandering is “beyond the reach of the federal courts” represents a significant win for Illinois Democrats and a second legal blow for advocates of changing the way the state draws its political boundaries.

U.S. Supreme Court decision that puts partisan gerrymandering ‘beyond reach’ of federal courts a win for Illinois Democrats

A win for Illinois Dems but a lose for the country. An all around bad decision since the Federal gov't has an interest in keeping Federal elections fair.

I'd prefer a proportional system instead of our winner take all one. If the Dems get 20% of the vote they get 20% of the house seats, 20% of the electoral college votes, etc.

There are no federal elections, period. States elect their representatives to the federal bodies. Even electors for president are State elections.

.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Now hold on a damn minute! I have been told by liberals on this very forum that gerrymandering was only done by Republicans.

The reality is gerrymandering has been done by both parties since the early 1800’s.

it's funny, the left said it was racist to not gerrmander, but now that it bites them in the ass...they cry and want to go home...fuck these losers

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what would you do with the court mandated affirmative action districts that guarantee a minority win?

Probably give them all free unicorns and leprechauns, since they dont exist, either.

But, if you would shut up and pay attention for 2 seconds, you would see that those opposing gerrymandering from both parties want it stopped for everyone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

it's funny, the left said it was racist to not gerrmander, but now that it bites them in the ass...they cry and want to go home...fuck these losers

And that's how you form your opinion of complicated ideas like these? If true, that is truly moronic. Embarrassing, really.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have other issues with voting by mail. as well as early voting. Sorry, but unless you have a valid reason, show up on election day.

What mathematical formula? Who makes the formula? You move the manipulation from people to computers.

Take up your issues with voting by mail somewhere else. It is a FACT.

A fixed mathematical formula does not "manipulate." People do. Which do you prefer?

No it is a current CONDITION. It can be changed just as easily as it was allowed. I have no issue with absentee ballots, but people able to go to a polling place should go to a polling place.

A formula does what it is supposed to do, the manipulation happens in the programming of the formula.

Didn't you ever watch Superman III?

No matter how much you try to manipulate a mathematical formula it will never be a very effective means of gerrymandering. A few simple rules makes it neigh impossible.

As you said, you were willing to accept some base gerrymandering as a simple reality. Well, this is how you get from your pictures to that.

 

[longknife]

It's about time the court realizes every issue is not the federal courts concern. Your thoughts?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday that partisan gerrymandering is “beyond the reach of the federal courts” represents a significant win for Illinois Democrats and a second legal blow for advocates of changing the way the state draws its political boundaries.

U.S. Supreme Court decision that puts partisan gerrymandering ‘beyond reach’ of federal courts a win for Illinois Democrats

.

Supreme Court allows gerrymandering

I’ve seen various reports on this, but this is the first that states the ruling like this.

In a 5-4 ruling that could reverberate through U.S. politics for years to come, the justices ruled that federal judges do not have the have the ability to curb partisan gerrymandering.

A State’s Rights ruling?


It’s not a great ruling for the rural counties here in Nevada. Dingy Harry Reid’s political machine now has a lock on the state legislature and that means the majority of political power will remain in the hands of the union-controlled counties around Las Vegas and Reno.

This redistricting in most states is carried out by the party in power, though some states in the interest of fairness assign the task to independent commissions. Gerrymandering typically involves politicians drawing legislative districts to pack voters who tend to favor a particular party into a small number of districts to diminish their statewide voting power while dispersing others in districts in numbers too small to be a majority.

More @ In Major Elections Ruling, Supreme Court Allows Partisan Map Drawing

Why the Supreme Court Got It Right on Gerrymandering @ Why the Supreme Court Got It Right on Gerrymandering

 

[martybegan]

I have other issues with voting by mail. as well as early voting. Sorry, but unless you have a valid reason, show up on election day.

What mathematical formula? Who makes the formula? You move the manipulation from people to computers.

Take up your issues with voting by mail somewhere else. It is a FACT.

A fixed mathematical formula does not "manipulate." People do. Which do you prefer?

No it is a current CONDITION. It can be changed just as easily as it was allowed. I have no issue with absentee ballots, but people able to go to a polling place should go to a polling place.

A formula does what it is supposed to do, the manipulation happens in the programming of the formula.

Didn't you ever watch Superman III?

No matter how much you try to manipulate a mathematical formula it will never be a very effective means of gerrymandering. A few simple rules makes it neigh impossible.

As you said, you were willing to accept some base gerrymandering as a simple reality. Well, this is how you get from your pictures to that.

The reason I accept some level of it is because anytime you try to create an "impartial commission" you are creating a bunch of liars who say they are impartial while they are not. Same thing for a mathematical formula created by those who say they are impartial while they are not.

I would prefer honest bias to dishonest impartiality any day of the week.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have other issues with voting by mail. as well as early voting. Sorry, but unless you have a valid reason, show up on election day.

What mathematical formula? Who makes the formula? You move the manipulation from people to computers.

Take up your issues with voting by mail somewhere else. It is a FACT.

A fixed mathematical formula does not "manipulate." People do. Which do you prefer?

No it is a current CONDITION. It can be changed just as easily as it was allowed. I have no issue with absentee ballots, but people able to go to a polling place should go to a polling place.

A formula does what it is supposed to do, the manipulation happens in the programming of the formula.

Didn't you ever watch Superman III?

No matter how much you try to manipulate a mathematical formula it will never be a very effective means of gerrymandering. A few simple rules makes it neigh impossible.

As you said, you were willing to accept some base gerrymandering as a simple reality. Well, this is how you get from your pictures to that.

The reason I accept some level of it is because anytime you try to create an "impartial commission" you are creating a bunch of liars who say they are impartial while they are not. Same thing for a mathematical formula created by those who say they are impartial while they are not.

I would prefer honest bias to dishonest impartiality any day of the week.

With a mathematical formula you could leave race and political affiliation out of the equation, thus when the formula does its thing it does not take such things into account.

 

[skews13]

Correct decision; however, I would like to see a uniform mathematical process that would begin at the geographical center of each state.

And where do you go from there? Do you create a starburst pattern, do you go north, go south? The starting point does matter, but the rest of the pattern matters more.

The starting point makes ALL the difference if it is immutable, like the geographic center of a state. From there, I would suggest a swirl pattern starting at due north, but that isn't as important as establishing a fixed formula that can't be adjusted for changing political considerations.

Great idea, but you obviously have not thought it through very well.

This is an easy one. There shouldn't be any districts.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Correct decision; however, I would like to see a uniform mathematical process that would begin at the geographical center of each state.

And where do you go from there? Do you create a starburst pattern, do you go north, go south? The starting point does matter, but the rest of the pattern matters more.

The starting point makes ALL the difference if it is immutable, like the geographic center of a state. From there, I would suggest a swirl pattern starting at due north, but that isn't as important as establishing a fixed formula that can't be adjusted for changing political considerations.

Great idea, but you obviously have not thought it through very well.

This is an easy one. There shouldn't be any districts.

How would you assign representatives then?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[skews13]

Correct decision; however, I would like to see a uniform mathematical process that would begin at the geographical center of each state.

And where do you go from there? Do you create a starburst pattern, do you go north, go south? The starting point does matter, but the rest of the pattern matters more.

The starting point makes ALL the difference if it is immutable, like the geographic center of a state. From there, I would suggest a swirl pattern starting at due north, but that isn't as important as establishing a fixed formula that can't be adjusted for changing political considerations.

Great idea, but you obviously have not thought it through very well.

This is an easy one. There shouldn't be any districts.

How would you assign representatives then?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

A set number of reps. Each state should be allowed 1 rep for every 1 million people in population of that state elected by the people of that state. If a red state is going to redraw imaginary maps to insure a set outcome anyway, why go through the motions? It makes no sense. You have 3 million people in your state, then vote for the 3 candidates of your choice by popular vote in that state. This would more accurately reflect the will of the voters in that state.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A set number of reps. Each state should be allowed 1 rep for every 1 million people in population of that state elected by the people of that state. If a red state is going to redraw imaginary maps to insure a set outcome anyway, why go through the motions? It makes no sense. You have 3 million people in your state, then vote for the 3 candidates of your choice by popular vote in that state. This would more accurately reflect the will of the voters in that state.

Seems you are cutting off your nose to spit your face. That is a terrible idea.

That is the way the Senate is designed because the Senate is supposed to represent the state. The House of Representatives are supposed to represent the district they are voted in from. you totally remove any power the minority group in a state has.