bearrock Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Electoral college was a policy decision to protect small state interests. I think pure democracy is better, but it is the system that was understood and agreed to, so be it. I don't know how anyone could defend gerrymandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said: Yes and no. The 10th is an...interesting shape. ... The district isn't the worst example of gerrymandering, but there are definitely curious decisions. If you take that chunk near the bottom that encompasses large parts of Manassas out to the edge of Lorton and move it to Reston and fill in a bit to the west of Fairfax, does Comstock still win? Probably not. Dont suppose it has to do with the population densities of northern va http://statchatva.org/2016/01/21/density-three-virginias/ Nope definitely just a conspiracy to make Loudon county democrats have a republican congresswoman Remember when you guys were all talking about how dangerous it was for trump to be talking about how the election system is rigged? Now look at you all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Wait @tshile are you legitimately arguing that partisan gerrymandering of VA's congressional districts isn't a thing or a isn't a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 On the whole gerrymandering/districting thing, I would love to have an algorithm that draws districts based on population heat-maps and an affinity for straight lines. Absolutely no regard for race/party/anything else of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, PokerPacker said: On the whole gerrymandering/districting thing, I would love to have an algorithm that draws districts based on population heat-maps and an affinity for straight lines. Absolutely no regard for race/party/anything else of the sort. Could be easily done too. Though you'd have to have some way of weighting different combinations. I don't know what the best answer is there. Geographical? Is it good or bad to group people by similarities (education, income, race, don't know I could see reasonable arguments either way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 1 minute ago, PokerPacker said: On the whole gerrymandering/districting thing, I would love to have an algorithm that draws districts based on population heat-maps and an affinity for straight lines. Absolutely no regard for race/party/anything else of the sort. Given the inevitability of the two party system in this country, you really need to factor in party affiliation but you need to do it in non partisan way to ensure that you are achieving best approximation of your populace is represented in congress. So in VA's case, you'd ideally have 4 safe GOP districts, 4 safe Dem districts, 1 lean slight GOP, 1 lean slight Dem, and one legit toss up that's expected to frequently change hands. That's the kind of system that would reflect the will on the people, which was the purpose of the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DallasCowboyFan156 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Bacon said: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory_us_5827a2c5e4b02d21bbc91bbc This is a problem. Is this not a huge ****ing problem? Why doesn't my vote matter here in California? Without the electoral college candidates would have close to zero incentive to look at what voters in rural areas care about. The cities, urban areas, and large states would become overly dominant. Those that live in low population areas would become subject to a tyranny of the majority. The electoral college allows a state like Oklahoma, where I live, to have a bit more influence in the presidential system. Oklahoma makes up only 1.2% of the US population but our 7 electoral votes makes up 2.6% of what is needed to get to 270 so it slightly off sets our low population count. In a system where only the popular vote counts California, who has 10 times the population we have, would totally erase any influence we would have in the outcome of presidential election.That said, I'm a Democrat who realizes that his state will never turn blue any time soon, but I'm not about to adopt a system where those that live on the coasts decide what is best for us in the interior. That's what would happen with the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Wait @tshile are you legitimately arguing that partisan gerrymandering of VA's congressional districts isn't a thing or a isn't a problem? No. I'm not. We know they are, they were so bad they were forced to redo them what a year ago? But I also think it's a little more complicated when you start factoring in the actual population numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Trump should totally go to Mosul and show them how much better of a job he can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, tshile said: No. I'm not. We know they are, they were so bad they were forced to redo them what a year ago? But I also think it's a little more complicated when you start factoring in the actual population numbers. They had to make a couple minor tweaks but the problem still obviously exists. Dont get me wrong, I understand that drawing fair districts is incredibly complicated. But so is drawing partisan districts like we have now, and that was accomplished with precision accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, skinsfan_1215 said: They had to make a couple minor tweaks but the problem still obviously exists. Dont get me wrong, I understand that drawing fair districts is incredibly complicated. But so is drawing partisan districts like we have now, and that was accomplished with precision accuracy. So how should northern va be broken up in a way to accounts for the incredibly dense areas? You want to talk about va gerrymandering then I think you need to start with the bs along the James River and what was done/why down there. Some part of Nova will be lumped in with some parts of more rural va. Tell me how you'd do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Given the inevitability of the two party system in this country, you really need to factor in party affiliation but you need to do it in non partisan way to ensure that you are achieving best approximation of your populace is represented in congress. So in VA's case, you'd ideally have 4 safe GOP districts, 4 safe Dem districts, 1 lean slight GOP, 1 lean slight Dem, and one legit toss up that's expected to frequently change hands. That's the kind of system that would reflect the will on the people, which was the purpose of the House. No, there is no reason to factor in party affiliation. Then you've just set yourself up with a gerrymander algorithm. There should be no districts artificially constructed to be safe for a political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, DallasCowboyFan156 said: Those that live in low population areas would become subject to a tyranny of the majority. And the reverse is happening currently. The majority is not pleased with the outcome of the election and is at the mercy of the minority. This has been the case in 2 out of the last 5 elections. If the electoral college is to be kept in place, electoral votes need to be re-adjusted for population totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Apparently running your election like a third world dictator is a great campaign device in the United States. Lol. **** off. He is such a phony that I hope he was joking about blocking TPP. Pass that **** through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Every state should adopt the nonpartisan districting system that California came up with in 2010. That would largely end the problem of gerrymandering. But the voters themselves have to force the change on the state legislature through propositions and binding ballot measures. The legislatures are not going to police themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 I actually think drawing unfair districts is much simpler. If what you want to do us maximize your party's influence, that's a fairly simple endeavor. "Fair" is way more complicated. First you'd have to agree on what fair even means. If there's a spectrum with fair on one end and unfair on the other, you could probably muddle your way to something in the middle. Getting further and further towards the ideal gets harder and harder. On the other hand, one thing you accept as part of a republic is that some people are going to end up with a person who "doesn't represent" them some percentage of the time even when the districts are "fair". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DallasCowboyFan156 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Bacon said: And the reverse is happening currently. The majority is not pleased with the outcome of the election and is at the mercy of the minority. This has been the case in 2 out of the last 5 elections. If the electoral college is to be kept in place, electoral votes need to be re-adjusted for population density. Adjusting for population density would make New Jersey the top EC vote state. So the state with the 11th highest population suddenly gets more votes than California who has a population five times as big? You're hurting your own cause here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, tshile said: No. I'm not. We know they are, they were so bad they were forced to redo them what a year ago? But I also think it's a little more complicated when you start factoring in the actual population numbers. I don't disagree, drawing fair districts is complicated, but I don't necessarily think population density is a good reason to allow a district to snarl about. I get that Reston is densely populated, but it should split up Reston, not flow around it, taking bits and pieces of densely populated areas while mostly grabbing less populated areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: No, there is no reason to factor in party affiliation. Then you've just set yourself up with a gerrymander algorithm. There should be no districts artificially constructed to be safe for a political party. You have to come up with some way. Otherwise, like in Virginia, you might winde up with a bunch of districts coming together in a point in the center of Richmond. Essentially splitting Richmond from a major city into a minority in 5 different districts and basically meaning the people living in Richmond would have no representation. If you divide along party lines you at least can get clusters of people to have representation they like. Gerrymandering isn't quite the same thing. Gerrymandering is about using your power to break up the other team's clusters so they are a minority over multiple districts and are never able to win. That's not the same as breaking districts along party affiliation fairly for both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: No, there is no reason to factor in party affiliation. Then you've just set yourself up with a gerrymander algorithm. There should be no districts artificially constructed to be safe for a political party. what about for minority representation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said: I don't disagree, drawing fair districts is complicated, but I don't necessarily think population density is a good reason to allow a district to snarl about. I get that Reston is densely populated, but it should split up Reston, not flow around it, taking bits and pieces of densely populated areas while mostly grabbing less populated areas. My post above addresses this. You go splitting cities up across districts they wind up the minority in many districts and their views have no representation Especially here in VA where 20 minutes outside the cities it's like you're in another world (politically speaking) I think if you do that in VA Dems might actually lose control. Not entire sure, but I think it's possible. The demography here is hard to wrap your head around and I've lived here for 31 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: No, there is no reason to factor in party affiliation. Then you've just set yourself up with a gerrymander algorithm. There should be no districts artificially constructed to be safe for a political party. They have to be though, to accurately reflect the breakdown of the state's demographics. If you randomly drew lines you wouldn't solve the problem of unfair representation, though you would end up with something not as bad as current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, tshile said: You have to come up with some way. Otherwise, like in Virginia, you might winde up with a bunch of districts coming together in a point in the center of Richmond. Essentially splitting Richmond from a major city into a minority in 5 different districts and basically meaning the people living in Richmond would have no representation. If you divide along party lines you at least can get clusters of people to have representation they like. Gerrymandering isn't quite the same thing. Gerrymandering is about using your power to break up the other team's clusters so they are a minority over multiple districts and are never able to win. That's not the same as breaking districts along party affiliation fairly for both teams. I specifically mentioned using heat-maps. The idea would be that the algorithm would try to avoid splitting up the hotter areas in the map, so it's not blind to population density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.