Supreme Court Upholds Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission

[chipwhich]

Well, it looks like Predicto has experience with how the two systems work. 

 

Allow distracting by a "bipartisan" group of politicians:  And the priority is protecting incumbents. 

 

Mandate that it be drawn by non politicians, (I think he mentioned once that members of the commission may not have ever held elective office, or served on any political committee, and must have never donated more than $1000 to any political group), and suddenly there's lots of seats up for grabs. 

 

Not according to my link.  Maybe FairVote.org isn't liberal biased, maybe they are secretly right wing nuts.

[twa]

 

 

IL-4 in Chicago, which in one place is as wide as one side of a freeway.  What's funny is that this district wasn't even created for party power.  It, and everything around it, is all Democrats.  It was created to link all the latino neighborhoods together and ensure latino representation in congress.

 

 

 

 

Nope never happened....and the feds had nothing to do with it 

 

 

Ain't that right Larry?

http://sites.lafayette.edu/goedertn/files/2014/07/Goedert_RedistrictingVRA.pdf

[DogofWar1]

Does anybody really trust our elected officials in 2015 to be fair when it comes to this?

 

Not after Pennsylvania 2012.

 

I mean I always knew it was a major problem on both sides, but the articles covering PA that year really demonstrated how bad things had gotten.  

 

So glad we finally got a small crack to work with hot on the heels of that from this SCOTUS decision, because without that we'd probably have no choice but a Constitutional Amendment, and "We the People" have the political will for any Constitutional Amendments at all, I'd prefer it be focused on campaign finance reform first.

[Larry]

I should probably respond, since I see my name in there. 

 

But since I can't find any coherent point in there, I should probably wait. 

[Predicto]

Does anybody really trust our elected officials in 2015 to be fair when it comes to this? Even if you have a split number from each party represented. I don't trust them. Could see a lot of deals being cut "We'll give you A and B for Y and Z" type of nonsense. Would much rather an independent panel (if that's even realistic) handle this. 

 

 

It is realistic.  It is working out here in California.

[Predicto]

 

Not according to my link.  Maybe FairVote.org isn't liberal biased, maybe they are secretly right wing nuts.

 

 

 

Fairvote isn't right wing, they are liberal/leftist.  They want much greater changes than the redistricting commission alone.   But they are wrong to the extent that they claim the redistricting commission didn't have any effect.   Or to be more specific, they are claiming that because people are moving to be near other people like them, the effect of drawing geographically reasonable districts becomes less significant.  In other words, if everyone in your county is of one party, then drawing a rational district boundary doesn't make the seat less "safe."  In this they are correct.  

 

However, their data for how this change has stopped encompasses only one election - 2014.   I think they are jumping the gun to say that no gradual changes are going to result.   

[balki1867]

There's already an algorithm someone developed to perform fairer redistricting.  It's called the shortest splitline method, and essentially you cut the state in half (or slightly more than half if you have an odd number of districts) using the shortest line you can draw (i.e. in a state like CA, that line would go East-West.  In a state like Tennessee, that line would go North-South).  Then you divide the two pieces appropriately until you end up with the state chopped up into districts.

 

http://rangevoting.org/GerryExec.html

 

They give an awesome example of North Carolina:

 

 

Even after doing this, the congressional districts would skew slightly Republican (i'm not sure skew is the right word) because the most Republican parts of the country are 65%-35% splits whereas the most Democratic ones are more like 100%-0%, but it's at least repeatable and not inherently biased.

[Hersh]

Actually, I was thinking about gerrymandering, a while back. And it kinda came as a shock to me to realize that you can't prove gerrymandering by showing that a state votes X% Dem, but Congress isn't X% Dem.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

What did it for me, was a realization. If, say, Florida votes 51% R.

Well, if the entire state votes 51% R, everywhere, then Congress will be 100% R, no matter where you draw the lines.

----------

No, the things that shout "gerrymandering", to me, are things like:

----------

It's tough to prove gerrymandering.

 

Your thoughts here don't make much sense. It's actually kind of bizarre using the rational that if there was a state wide 51% vote one way that it would lead to 100% representation from said party if there was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering doesn't mean 100% of the districts go to one party.

 

It's not tough to prove gerrymandering. Look at a map and see how the districts are drawn. Look at the percentages of voters in the state. This isn't complicated.

 

Edit: This is much worse in the state legislature districts in NC.

[balki1867]

I should add that even the straightline method isn't perfect.  Let's say you lived in a hypothetical state with 1.3M people, and there was one city that had half of that population -- 650k.

 

This state would have 2 congressional districts and by most reasonable methods, it would make the most sense to have one district for that city, and one for the rest of the state.  Each person in this state would have a congressman who represents their needs, regardless of whether you're an urban person in that city, or a rural person.

 

Instead, though, the straightline method would cut that city in half and you'd have two districts that each represent half of the city and half of the rest of the state, and you'd have some bizarre elections.

[chipwhich]

Fairvote isn't right wing, they are liberal/leftist.  They want much greater changes than the redistricting commission alone.   But they are wrong to the extent that they claim the redistricting commission didn't have any effect.   Or to be more specific, they are claiming that because people are moving to be near other people like them, the effect of drawing geographically reasonable districts becomes less significant.  In other words, if everyone in your county is of one party, then drawing a rational district boundary doesn't make the seat less "safe."  In this they are correct.  

 

However, their data for how this change has stopped encompasses only one election - 2014.   I think they are jumping the gun to say that no gradual changes are going to result.   

 

Just interesting perspective from Jim Ellis -vs- Fairvote.  I realize they aren't right wing, just being sarcastic.

 

2 opinions, maybe we can just agree that the jury is still out on the long term results.

[Larry]

Your thoughts here don't make much sense. It's actually kind of bizarre using the rational that if there was a state wide 51% vote one way that it would lead to 100% representation from said party if there was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering doesn't mean 100% of the districts go to one party.

 

Perhaps I can explain my reasoning better.

Let's assume that the state of Florida, as a whole, votes 51% Republican. And let's say it's representation, in Congress, is 80% Republican. Does this prove gerrymandering?

No, it doesn't.

For example, in the simplest of all possible cases, let's assume that every single portion of Florida votes 51% Republican.

In this case, Florida's representation in Congress will be 100% Republican, NO MATTER WHERE YOU DRAW THE DISTRICTS.

[Kilmer17]

I have this fantasy where the voters mandate that districts be drawn by computer. That the computer will be loaded with a map of the state, including the number of people (or maybe number of registered voters?) on each block. And with geographic boundaries like rivers, or county or city lines. (And the program which draws the districts will favor using natural borders, or political borders, as the boundaries between districts.)

But, by law, the computer will not be told how many voters per block are registered D or R, or other information which could be used for gerrymandering. The computer will be completely politics-ignorant.

Never happen.

How would that address the mandated minority district laws?

[Larry]

How would that address the mandated minority district laws?

Oh, I suppose it would be possible to factor that in. But me, I'd get rid of them.

[Kilmer17]

Oh, I suppose it would be possible to factor that in. But me, I'd get rid of them.

That's part of the problem now. The GOP is using those laws to jam districts with minorities therefor lessening the influence of minorities in other districts.

The road to hell.....

[Larry]

That's part of the problem now. The GOP is using those laws to jam districts with minorities therefor lessening the influence of minorities in other districts.

The road to hell.....

 

No it isn't part of the problem. 

 

The law mandates that there be districts which are majority minority. 

 

The GOP chooses to create districts which are entirely minority.  Because doing so makes their votes less important.  (And that's what they want.) 

 

And when called on it, they flat out lie. 

 

----------

 

However, as to your original question: 

 

Just my opinion, but the laws requiring majority minority districts was created to prevent minorities from being gerrymandered into irrelevance.  My opinion is that, if you give me a method of districting that is race- and politics-blind, (and is guaranteed to be so, not just "non-partisan" in name only.),  then there's no need for the law. 

[chipwhich]

The GOP chooses to create districts which are entirely minority.  Because doing so makes their votes less important.  (And that's what they want.) 

 

Nonsense, but if you got some evidence of such....

[Larry]

Nonsense, but if you got some evidence of such....

 

The fact that such districts exist, and are drawn by the GOP, isn't enough for you? 

[twa]

the districts need to elect minority representatives, otherwise they increase the minorities......what's that word SCOTUS just endorsed on housing?

 

disparate or some such  .only results matter

[Larry]

the districts need to elect minority representatives, otherwise they increase the minorities......what's that word SCOTUS just endorsed on housing?

 

disparate or some such  .only results matter

 

I suppose it would be silly to ask if there's a point behind all that spin? 

[twa]

I suppose it would be silly to ask if there's a point behind all that spin? 

 

the point of drawing minority districts is to elect minorities, no spin needed.

 

tis not the drawing but the result that matters

[Larry]

the point of drawing minority districts is to elect minorities, no spin needed.

 

The fact is that: 

 

1)  Drawing majority minority districts is both required by law (in some places), and is designed to elect minorities. 

 

2)  Drawing entirely minority districts is intentional gerrymandering, for the obvious purpose of giving said minorities as little voice as possible. 

 

tis not the drawing but the result that matters

 

 

Uh, no, I'm pretty sure that gerrymandering districts to suppress minority influence is morally wrong, whether it works or not. 

[twa]

what do you do when the minority district does not elect a minority?

 

you call it suppressing, yet it is designed to enable.

[Larry]

what do you do when the minority district does not elect a minority?

 

you call it suppressing, yet it is designed to enable.

 

What do you do when somebody points out something that's blindingly obvious, but you want to try to deny, anyway? 

 

You pretend that the other person said something that they didn't. 

[twa]

is drawing minority majority districts suppressing their vote?....yes/no?

[Larry]

is drawing minority majority districts suppressing their vote?....yes/no?

 

 

The fact is that: 

 

1)  Drawing majority minority districts is both required by law (in some places), and is designed to elect minorities. 

 

2)  Drawing entirely minority districts is intentional gerrymandering, for the obvious purpose of giving said minorities as little voice as possible.