Gerrymandered Districts Might Not Be Safe

[djAdvocate]

i kept wondering how the GOP could have pulled off what they did in 2010/2012.  for example, in Michigan they lost the vote, but got something like 3/4 of the congressional seats.

well, the way they did it was to group most of the democrats into a small number of districts, and then made the rest "lean republican".  and it worked.  but here is the problem: democrats won their districts by an average of 40%, but the GOP only won theirs by 13%. 

with the GOP engineered shutdown, those numbers have fallen about 20%, meaning that a LOT of these gerrymandered districts are in play.  so much so that one analyst rated flipping the house in 2014 at 50/50 under one scenario:

election.princeton.edu/2013/10/09/partisan-gerrymanderings-hidden-burden/

this is a very interesting and unexpected development.  i figured the GOP wound hand Democrats their hats in midterms.  but they seem to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

election.princeton.edu/2013/10/10/a-prediction-for-2014-house-elections-take-1/

here is the predictive model for the above (note: it is lagging by one whole week of bad press over the budget empasse):

[djAdvocate]

hey, that graph looks just like the 1000 year graph of global mean temperature. 

[djAdvocate]

PS- for those of you that are wondering, Sam Wang is the next Nate Silver.  Nate took a job at ESPN doing predictive analysis for sports, so that is going to take him pretty far out of politics, imo.  Sam and he agree about 90% of the time.  Nate actually thinks the shutdown bump for Democrats is a "transient anomaly".  Sam thinks it will stick.

we'll see.

[tallguy]

Redistricting should not be in the hands of the political parties.  There should be bipartisan commissions handling it and disallowing the blatant corruption of logical boundaries.  Truly pathetic that in a country that thinks of itself as democratic (small "d" for you ultra-conservatives) where every vote is supposed to count, we allow what is likely the most undemocratic of ideas to determine so much of our government's make-up. 

Gerrymandered districts exacerbate extremism.  Extremism exacerbates acrimony and gridlock.  You cannot govern from the extreme, on either side.  Governing depends on both sides.  And it requires a large middle.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2013 14:46:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Redistricting should not be in the hands of the political parties.  There should be bipartisan commissions handling it and disallowing the blatant corruption of logical boundaries.  Truly pathetic that in a country that thinks of itself as democratic (small "d" for you ultra-conservatives) where every vote is supposed to count, we allow what is likely the most undemocratic of ideas to determine so much of our government's make-up. 

Gerrymandered districts exacerbate extremism.  Extremism exacerbates acrimony and gridlock.  You cannot govern from the extreme, on either side.  Governing depends on both sides.  And it requires a large middle.

by definition most of us are in the middle.
and by consequence of gerrymandering, most of us are not represented.

[tallguy]

Exactly right.  (But I was actually referring to a large middle with respect to legislators.)  Moderate to conservative Democrats are part of that middle.  Liberal to moderate Republicans would be too, if we could find enough left to count.  

I used to say many years ago that the Democratic Party spoke for the 10-15% lunatic fringe on the left, the Republican Party spoke for the 10-15% lunatic fringe on the right, and nobody spoke for the 70-80% in the middle.  Even that has shifted way right.

[mmhmm]

Oct 19, 2013 15:23:32 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Exactly right.  (But I was actually referring to a large middle with respect to legislators.)  Moderate to conservative Democrats are part of that middle.  Liberal to moderate Republicans would be too, if we could find enough left to count.  

I used to say many years ago that the Democratic Party spoke for the 10-15% lunatic fringe on the left, the Republican Party spoke for the 10-15% lunatic fringe on the right, and nobody spoke for the 70-80% in the middle.  Even that has shifted way right.

I'm not sure it's shifted as far as it appears to have shifted.  If one considers the natural inclination of the more liberal amongst us to "live and let live", one realizes they're less vocal and less confrontational than the more conservative in our ranks.  It's just the nature of the beasts, and I wonder how it affects the way the overall leaning of the country is perceived.  We've got a very large silent contingent, I think.

[tallguy]

Yes we do.  But Clinton did move the Democrats toward the center, and the Republican Party now speaks for a more extreme segment of the right-wing.  To me, at least, it shifted quite a bit.    

[mmhmm]

I agree much of the Republican party has shifted hard right, tallguy.  I just think there are a lot of people who are unaffiliated, or who voice their affiliation with one party or the other but aren't actually all that involved with the side-choosing garbage.  These are the folks who vote independently despite the way they're registered.  Some are now switching parties, as they have in the past, but some just ride along as they are while often voting differently.

[tallguy]

But...but...but...THE ENTIRE COUNTRY has shifted right.  Don't you read Paul?  How can you doubt him?  EVER!  

[Sum Dum Gai]

California tried that whole bipartisan commission to determine districts, as far as I know it worked pretty well, but the process was messy as hell.  Fringe groups and both parties trying to game the system in every way possible at the public input meetings and stuff.  It was loud, chaotic, messy, took forever, but as far as I can tell, we got reasonably fair districts out of it.

[tallguy]

It was loud, chaotic, messy, took forever, but as far as I can tell, we got reasonably fair districts out of it.

Then let them deal with a little noise.  I'd rather have fair districts.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Most districts will naturally lean one way or other without the gerrymandering though.  I'll have to see if I can find the district map for California, one of the bluest of blue states, right?  Yeah, this is how our counties voted in 2010:



That's a lot of red leaning area.  Fair doesn't necessarily mean that all districts or even a majority would be in play.  Fair just means that the districts are more or less symmetrical, with common sense boundaries, and not based on trying to skew the local area's natural leaning in either direction.  You'll still have red districts and blue districts, and opposition voters in those districts who feel they have no voice in the process.

[tallguy]

Fair doesn't necessarily mean that all districts or even a majority would be in play. Fair just means that the districts are more or less symmetrical, with common sense boundaries, and not based on trying to skew the local area's natural leaning in either direction.

Yes, that is what fair districts means.  With the parties in charge and able to manipulate to their own ends, boundaries are skewed to the point of ridiculousness.  They do that to put many of the opposition's voters into a single district, thus making them minorities in other districts, or by splitting them into several districts to deny representation that way.  Either way, it is not a practice that we should be happy with.  It denies representation and it absolutely corrupts the ideal that every person's vote is important.  We may not agree on much as a society, but shouldn't that be on the list?  

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2013 16:22:40 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

California tried that whole bipartisan commission to determine districts, as far as I know it worked pretty well, but the process was messy as hell.  Fringe groups and both parties trying to game the system in every way possible at the public input meetings and stuff.  It was loud, chaotic, messy, took forever, but as far as I can tell, we got reasonably fair districts out of it.

exactly right.  i would love to see it franchised to all (50) states, personally.  it is how things SHOULD work.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2013 16:34:09 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Most districts will naturally lean one way or other without the gerrymandering though.  I'll have to see if I can find the district map for California, one of the bluest of blue states, right?  Yeah, this is how our counties voted in 2010:



That's a lot of red leaning area.  Fair doesn't necessarily mean that all districts or even a majority would be in play.  Fair just means that the districts are more or less symmetrical, with common sense boundaries, and not based on trying to skew the local area's natural leaning in either direction.  You'll still have red districts and blue districts, and opposition voters in those districts who feel they have no voice in the process.

i try to tell my friends from TX and FL that CA is not nearly as blue as, say, MA.  it is really red, by area. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2013 16:58:23 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Fair doesn't necessarily mean that all districts or even a majority would be in play. Fair just means that the districts are more or less symmetrical, with common sense boundaries, and not based on trying to skew the local area's natural leaning in either direction.

Yes, that is what fair districts means.  With the parties in charge and able to manipulate to their own ends, boundaries are skewed to the point of ridiculousness.  They do that to put many of the opposition's voters into a single district, thus making them minorities in other districts, or by splitting them into several districts to deny representation that way.  Either way, it is not a practice that we should be happy with.  It denies representation and it absolutely corrupts the ideal that every person's vote is important.  We may not agree on much as a society, but shouldn't that be on the list?  

fair means a district doesn't look like an octopus, just to make sure that it votes 80% Democratic.

[Value Buy]

Oct 19, 2013 14:46:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Redistricting should not be in the hands of the political parties.  There should be bipartisan commissions handling it and disallowing the blatant corruption of logical boundaries.  Truly pathetic that in a country that thinks of itself as democratic (small "d" for you ultra-conservatives) where every vote is supposed to count, we allow what is likely the most undemocratic of ideas to determine so much of our government's make-up. 

Gerrymandered districts exacerbate extremism.  Extremism exacerbates acrimony and gridlock.  You cannot govern from the extreme, on either side.  Governing depends on both sides.  And it requires a large middle.

tallguy, do you agree this should not occur in ethnic district gerrymandering to make sure minorities are elected?

[tallguy]

VB,

I am generally not much of a relativist when it comes to right and wrong.  If something is wrong for one, it is wrong for all.  And not being one who identifies with groups in general, I don't have any blind loyalties.

To answer specifically, no, I don't believe gerrymandering is ever "right."  If a district is designed with logically coherent boundaries and it turns out to be minority, fine.  If it doesn't, that is fine too.  If I remember correctly, the terms are "packing" (packing one group into a single district to dilute their effect in other districts) and "cracking" (splitting up an area into multiple districts to have a subject group be outnumbered in each.)  Both types distort what a true representation of an area should be, and result in a lack of representation and a lot of "wasted" votes. 

Another part of gerrymandering that I disagree with are the long, narrow "fingers" extending deeply into a neighboring area so that a certain politician qualifies to run in the other district.  The whole process is designed to distort both reality and equality, and yes, I have a problem with that.   

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 19, 2013 15:23:32 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Exactly right.  (But I was actually referring to a large middle with respect to legislators.)  Moderate to conservative Democrats are part of that middle.  Liberal to moderate Republicans would be too, if we could find enough left to count.  

I used to say many years ago that the Democratic Party spoke for the 10-15% lunatic fringe on the left, the Republican Party spoke for the 10-15% lunatic fringe on the right, and nobody spoke for the 70-80% in the middle.  Even that has shifted way right.

I wish you were right. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 21, 2013 0:28:22 GMT -5 tallguy said:

VB,

I am generally not much of a relativist when it comes to right and wrong.  If something is wrong for one, it is wrong for all.  And not being one who identifies with groups in general, I don't have any blind loyalties.

To answer specifically, no, I don't believe gerrymandering is ever "right."  If a district is designed with logically coherent boundaries and it turns out to be minority, fine.  If it doesn't, that is fine too.  If I remember correctly, the terms are "packing" (packing one group into a single district to dilute their effect in other districts) and "cracking" (splitting up an area into multiple districts to have a subject group be outnumbered in each.)  Both types distort what a true representation of an area should be, and result in a lack of representation and a lot of "wasted" votes. 

Another part of gerrymandering that I disagree with are the long, narrow "fingers" extending deeply into a neighboring area so that a certain politician qualifies to run in the other district.  The whole process is designed to distort both reality and equality, and yes, I have a problem with that.   

I don't think Congressional districts ought to wind around the map in the convoluted way that they do, but you can't just drop a box on the map, either.  I am at a loss for how to accomplish it, but I think we need to make redistricting as close to the local level as possible, and make it more resemble the actual map- for example.  We're up in Cocoa Beach right now but our residence of record is down in South Florida.  I was in Congressman West's old district by an eyelash- I had neighbors across the canal that were in another district.  Now, it's all screwed up- and no, I don't blame re-districting for West's loss- I blame out and out fraud for that (proven, btw). But we have to find a way to make our representatives accountable to the people they actually represent.  I don't like the map divided like spoils by the two parties.  There ought to be places where libertarians are 'safe', for example.  I know whole towns where you couldn't get elected dog catcher with a D or an R after your name on the ballot- and yet they're represented by D's and R's.  We ought not let this happen.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 19, 2013 16:34:09 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Most districts will naturally lean one way or other without the gerrymandering though.  I'll have to see if I can find the district map for California, one of the bluest of blue states, right?  Yeah, this is how our counties voted in 2010:



That's a lot of red leaning area.  Fair doesn't necessarily mean that all districts or even a majority would be in play.  Fair just means that the districts are more or less symmetrical, with common sense boundaries, and not based on trying to skew the local area's natural leaning in either direction.  You'll still have red districts and blue districts, and opposition voters in those districts who feel they have no voice in the process.

This is how the whole country looks. And again- I'm at a loss for how to solve it, but this is why you have so many frustrated people in this country. The political climate is totally controlled by the coasts and a few strongholds in large populated cities. The idea that the voters in large, densely populated urban areas should decide everything for the folks in "flyover country" is absurd. Our founders created a REPUBLIC to avoid the tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is actually genius- it's the last patch in the dam to keep the mob at bay-- and even that is faltering.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 21, 2013 8:17:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 21, 2013 0:28:22 GMT -5 tallguy said:

VB,

I am generally not much of a relativist when it comes to right and wrong.  If something is wrong for one, it is wrong for all.  And not being one who identifies with groups in general, I don't have any blind loyalties.

To answer specifically, no, I don't believe gerrymandering is ever "right."  If a district is designed with logically coherent boundaries and it turns out to be minority, fine.  If it doesn't, that is fine too.  If I remember correctly, the terms are "packing" (packing one group into a single district to dilute their effect in other districts) and "cracking" (splitting up an area into multiple districts to have a subject group be outnumbered in each.)  Both types distort what a true representation of an area should be, and result in a lack of representation and a lot of "wasted" votes. 

Another part of gerrymandering that I disagree with are the long, narrow "fingers" extending deeply into a neighboring area so that a certain politician qualifies to run in the other district.  The whole process is designed to distort both reality and equality, and yes, I have a problem with that.   

I don't think Congressional districts ought to wind around the map in the convoluted way that they do, but you can't just drop a box on the map, either.  I am at a loss for how to accomplish it, but I think we need to make redistricting as close to the local level as possible, and make it more resemble the actual map- for example.  We're up in Cocoa Beach right now but our residence of record is down in South Florida.  I was in Congressman West's old district by an eyelash- I had neighbors across the canal that were in another district.  Now, it's all screwed up- and no, I don't blame re-districting for West's loss- I blame out and out fraud for that (proven, btw).  But we have to find a way to make our representatives accountable to the people they actually represent.  I don't like the map divided like spoils by the two parties.  There ought to be places where libertarians are 'safe', for example.  I know whole towns where you couldn't get elected dog catcher with a D or an R after your name on the ballot- and yet they're represented by D's and R's.  We ought not let this happen.

Proven by whom please.  How about providing the results and findings of the election ìnvestigation.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The electoral college is the reason the flyover votes don't count in national popular elections. Almost every state awards electors in a winner takes all fashion. The Pubs have something like 3 million registered voters in California alone and haven't gotten a single electoral vote out of them since Reagan.

[Deleted]

i try to tell my friends from TX and FL that CA is not nearly as blue as, say, MA. it is really red, by area.

 Square miles of "area" do not vote. PEOPLE vote.
 Is it reasonable to expect a sparsely populated 430 square mile "district" in the hinterlands, with a grand total of (let's say) 43 registered voters, to have as much political influence as the same amount of densely populated urban area that has millions of residents?

[Tennesseer]

Oct 21, 2013 9:14:06 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 21, 2013 8:17:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't think Congressional districts ought to wind around the map in the convoluted way that they do, but you can't just drop a box on the map, either.  I am at a loss for how to accomplish it, but I think we need to make redistricting as close to the local level as possible, and make it more resemble the actual map- for example.  We're up in Cocoa Beach right now but our residence of record is down in South Florida.  I was in Congressman West's old district by an eyelash- I had neighbors across the canal that were in another district.  Now, it's all screwed up- and no, I don't blame re-districting for West's loss- I blame out and out fraud for that (proven, btw).  But we have to find a way to make our representatives accountable to the people they actually represent.  I don't like the map divided like spoils by the two parties.  There ought to be places where libertarians are 'safe', for example.  I know whole towns where you couldn't get elected dog catcher with a D or an R after your name on the ballot- and yet they're represented by D's and R's.  We ought not let this happen.

Proven by whom please.  How about providing the results and findings of the election ìnvestigation.

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP - I'm still waiting for that proof of yours West lost due to fraud.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 21, 2013 10:33:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The electoral college is the reason the flyover votes don't count in national popular elections. Almost every state awards electors in a winner takes all fashion. The Pubs have something like 3 million registered voters in California alone and haven't gotten a single electoral vote out of them since Reagan.

Fair point.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 21, 2013 16:48:24 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 21, 2013 9:14:06 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Proven by whom please.  How about providing the results and findings of the election ìnvestigation.

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP - I'm still waiting for that proof of yours West lost due to fraud.

A Democrat involved in voter fraud requires proof anymore?  Really? Do you also want me to prove water is wet, and the sun is hot?  Gimme a break.  You have Google, if you're not already up to speed, it's easy to fix that.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Fair point.

Of course, the counter argument is that if the presidential election was decided by national popular election small towns might get ignored during the campaign.  I've never really bought that because they get ignored anyway.  When politicians swing through states they don't stop at every small town.  They hit a few for PR purposes, but they're mostly focused on the bigger cities where the voters live.

[Tennesseer]

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP - so who was arrested and convicted for this supposed fraud?  Even your go-to site for your 'facts' could only come up with this, six months after West lost the election:

"Voter Fraud May Have Swayed Allen West Election In 2012"


www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/19/Voter-Fraud-May-Have-Swayed-Allen-West-Election-In-2012

And if voter fraud had been absolutely proven, wouldn't Patrick Murphy have been removed from office (not enough valid votes) and West seated instead (majority of valid votes)?  

West simply has not been in the news regarding this 'voter fraud' and 'proven' fact he lost because of it.  I would think it would be national news, even on Fox demanding West be seated.  But as far as I know, he iscstill in Florida.