Time to congratulate some Republicans

[Marvin the Martian]

A group of Republicans have filed an amicus brief supporting the end of gerrymandering. In the group is Richard Lugar, which makes me happy since I have voted for him. Also McCain and Kasich. That may get me to like the idea of Kasich/Hickenlooper.

It was wrong when the D's had more control and did it. It is wrong with th he D's now doing it. I believe it strikes at the heart of one man onr vote. It makes it one man 3/4ths vote. Or less.

This is an issue of huge importance. Bigger than it looks

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

A group of Republicans have filed an amicus brief supporting the end of gerrymandering. In the group is Richard Lugar, which makes me happy since I have voted for him. Also McCain and Kasich. That may get me to like the idea of Kasich/Hickenlooper.

It was wrong when the D's had more control and did it. It is wrong with th he D's now doing it. I believe it strikes at the heart of one man onr vote. It makes it one man 3/4ths vote. Or less.

This is an issue of huge importance. Bigger than it looks

I guess I'm wondering why they're bothering with the SC on this. Districts aren't a constitutional issue. If congress is ever of the mind to do so they can end districts altogether as far as I know. Congress has simply chosen to not exercise their power regarding how federal elections are handled in the states.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess I'm wondering why they're bothering with the SC on this. Districts aren't a constitutional issue. If congress is ever of the mind to do so they can end districts altogether as far as I know. Congress has simply chosen to not exercise their power regarding how federal elections are handled in the states.

Gerrymandering is very much a constitutional issue. The court has already developed standards for racial, etc. gerrymandering. They have not yet identified a standard for testing partisan gerrymandering, but they also haven't ruled out the possibility.

In practice, all a court or a lawyer need do is convince Kennedy that a particular test is feasible, and it's game over for gerrymandering.

 

[twenty02]

Rapid partisans should not be drawing districts, period.

 

[meridian]

Rapid partisans should not be drawing districts, period.

Neither should the slow partisans.
The problem is, how do you do that? How many people have you met, who readily admit that s/he is a partisan?

 

[twenty02]

Neither should the slow partisans.
The problem is, how do you do that? How many people have you met, who readily admit that s/he is a partisan?

See CA and AZ.

 

[toastedbread]

A group of Republicans have filed an amicus brief supporting the end of gerrymandering. In the group is Richard Lugar, which makes me happy since I have voted for him. Also McCain and Kasich. That may get me to like the idea of Kasich/Hickenlooper.

It was wrong when the D's had more control and did it. It is wrong with th he D's now doing it. I believe it strikes at the heart of one man onr vote. It makes it one man 3/4ths vote. Or less.

This is an issue of huge importance. Bigger than it looks

Don't you mean the electoral college?

Gerrymandering in and of itself doesn't make your vote worth more or less.

 

[twenty02]

Don't you mean the electoral college?

Gerrymandering in and of itself doesn't make your vote worth more or less.

If it doesn't....then how can a party win 48% of the vote but 2/3rds the legislature seats (as happened in WI)?

 

[toastedbread]

If it doesn't....then how can a party win 48% of the vote but 2/3rds the legislature seats (as happened in WI)?

That's on a party level, not an individual level. On the Invidual level your vote is worth 1 toward your state rep no matter where you live. On the congressional and EC level, Invidual voters votes are worth more or less than 1 depending on what state you live in.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's on a party level, not an individual level. On the Invidual level your vote is worth 1 toward your state rep no matter where you live. On the congressional and EC level, Invidual voters votes are worth more or less than 1 depending on what state you live in.

Yeah, in terms of the voting power of any one individual for congressional seats, there obviously is some variance (and always will be, regardless how districts are drawn). But the variance is never massive.

Based on the 2010 census, the most populous district -- ie, each voter has the least "power" -- is Montana's lone at-large district (994,416). The least populous district -- ie, each voter has the most "power" -- is Rhode Island's 1st (526,283).

For comparison's sake, the average congressional district has 710,676 residents.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's on a party level, not an individual level. On the Invidual level your vote is worth 1 toward your state rep no matter where you live. On the congressional and EC level, Invidual voters votes are worth more or less than 1 depending on what state you live in.

You are confusing three different concepts. The EC is misapportioned and votes in blocs, which gives different states different amounts of power based on the likelihood of being a swing state. The Senate is misapportioned, but votes individually, giving voters in different states different levels of absolute representative influence.

The House and state legislatures have a different problem entirely. Districts are roughly equal, but cracking and packing ensures that one party has more wasted votes than the other, dramatically reducing the effective value of that party's voters. The Wisconsin case revolves around a relatively new way to measure the unfairness of this waste (called an efficiency gap). In that state, Dems outpolled Repubs by over 2 points, but the GOP still won 61% of the seats. The measured efficiency gap was about 12%; the developer of the method suggests anything over 7% correlates with extreme partisan gerrymandering.

 

[toastedbread]

The House and state legislatures have a different problem entirely. Districts are roughly equal, but cracking and packing ensures that one party has more wasted votes than the other, dramatically reducing the effective value of that party's voters. The Wisconsin case revolves around a relatively new way to measure the unfairness of this waste (called an efficiency gap). In that state, Dems outpolled Repubs by over 2 points, but the GOP still won 61% of the seats. The measured efficiency gap was about 12%; the developer of the method suggests anything over 7% correlates with extreme partisan gerrymandering

That's exactly what I said. It's on a party level, not on an individual voter level. With/without your party label, your vote=1. In the case of the congressional house, Senate, and presidency 1 vote does not equal 1 relative to voters in other states. Some voters have more or less representation.

On the state level, parties are getting screwed. I'm not contesting that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's exactly what I said. It's on a party level, not on an individual voter level. With/without your party label, your vote=1. In the case of the congressional house, Senate, and presidency 1 vote does not equal 1 relative to voters in other states. Some voters have more or less representation.

On the state level, parties are getting screwed. I'm not contesting that.

No, the parties' voters are getting screwed.

If you already understand this concept, then your original foray into this thread was worthless.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Gerrymandering is very much a constitutional issue. The court has already developed standards for racial, etc. gerrymandering. They have not yet identified a standard for testing partisan gerrymandering, but they also haven't ruled out the possibility.

In practice, all a court or a lawyer need do is convince Kennedy that a particular test is feasible, and it's game over for gerrymandering.

Right, but I didn't mention gerrymandering. We only have gerrymandering because of districts. Districts aren't a constitutional issue. Congress could end districting if they wanted to and we wouldn't have all the subsequent gerrymandering issues.

 

[toastedbread]

No, the parties' voters are getting screwed.

If you already understand this concept, then your original foray into this thread was worthless.

You aren't understanding my point. The state level districts are equally proportioned by population. Therefore, 1 vote is the same no matter what district you live in.

In the case of congress 1 vote is worth .95 in some cases, 1.05 in others.

I'm responding to this:

"Ibelieve it strikes at the heart of one man onr vote. It makes it one man 3/4ths vote. Or less. "

Yes, they pen in people by party, and play games. But that's on the party level where it makes a difference. It's irrelevant to your individual representation.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Right, but I didn't mention gerrymandering. We only have gerrymandering because of districts. Districts aren't a constitutional issue. Congress could end districting if they wanted to and we wouldn't have all the subsequent gerrymandering issues.

You replied to a story about gerrymandering stating you wondered why they were going to the SC, so I explained why.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You aren't understanding my point. The state level districts are equally proportioned by population. Therefore, 1 vote is the same no matter what district you live in.

In the case of congress 1 vote is worth .95 in some cases, 1.05 in others.

I'm responding to this:

"Ibelieve it strikes at the heart of one man onr vote. It makes it one man 3/4ths vote. Or less. "

Yes, they pen in people by party, and play games. But that's on the party level where it makes a difference. It's irrelevant to your individual representation.

No, you don't understand my point. It's about the relative value of individual votes. The party effect is secondary, and also the motivation behind it. But the core issue is that your vote has less value if it is more likely to be wasted. If your candidate wins 85-15, your vote is worth 51/85, or 0.6, but if your candidate wins 55-45, your vote is worth 51/55, or .927. Parties take advantage of this by shifting as many 0.6 districts to the opponent, while keeping the .927 districts, but the value of your individual vote is still affected.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You replied to a story about gerrymandering stating you wondered why they were going to the SC, so I explained why.

Yes, by pointing out that they wouldn't have to if congress exercised their right to handle the elections. It was a sort of a rhetorical "why?".

 

[toastedbread]

No, you don't understand my point. It's about the relative value of individual votes. The party effect is secondary, and also the motivation behind it. But the core issue is that your vote has less value if it is more likely to be wasted. If your candidate wins 85-15, your vote is worth 51/85, or 0.6, but if your candidate wins 55-45, your vote is worth 51/55, or .927. Parties take advantage of this by shifting as many 0.6 districts to the opponent, while keeping the .927 districts, but the value of your individual vote is still affected.

I thought the initial post was referring to raw representation, and not wasted votes. Your individual representation is equal. I'll concede your individual vote may be less likely to impact an election, but that's secondary imo. Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. An equally important issue is having less raw representation relative to other citizens.

Btw, gerrymandering can also severly backfire in the case of large swings.

Edit: the easiest solution for this is to eliminate districts and instead have proporational representation.

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

You are confusing three different concepts. The EC is misapportioned and votes in blocs, which gives different states different amounts of power based on the likelihood of being a swing state. The Senate is misapportioned, but votes individually, giving voters in different states different levels of absolute representative influence.

The House and state legislatures have a different problem entirely. Districts are roughly equal, but cracking and packing ensures that one party has more wasted votes than the other, dramatically reducing the effective value of that party's voters. The Wisconsin case revolves around a relatively new way to measure the unfairness of this waste (called an efficiency gap). In that state, Dems outpolled Repubs by over 2 points, but the GOP still won 61% of the seats. The measured efficiency gap was about 12%; the developer of the method suggests anything over 7% correlates with extreme partisan gerrymandering.

Looks like Wisconsin should be the poster child for all states. Replicate that nationwide and we could get some things accomplished.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I thought the initial post was referring to raw representation, and not wasted votes. Your individual representation is equal. I'll concede your individual vote may be less likely to impact an election, but that's secondary imo. Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. An equally important issue is having less raw representation relative to other citizens.

Btw, gerrymandering can also severly backfire in the case of large swings.

Edit: the easiest solution for this is to eliminate districts and instead have proporational representation.

Since the original post was about gerrymandering, and Marvin is a smart guy, I assumed he was talking about the efficiency gap measurement that is at the heart of the Wisconsin case.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Since the original post was about gerrymandering, and Marvin is a smart guy, I assumed he was talking about the efficiency gap measurement that is at the heart of the Wisconsin case.

Yes, that is my reference. Packing districts reduces the overall value of votes.

But Toasted is right on the EC, I would like to find a solution there but it is more difficult. I know our GOP friends will not eliminate it, and it cannot be unconstitutional.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Whenever the issue of gerrymandering is brought up, I always like to point out that the Congressional districts in 2010 (when the GOP won a wave midterm election) were the exact same as they were in 2006 (when the Democrats won a wave midterm election).

 

[meridian]

Whenever the issue of gerrymandering is brought up, I always like to point out that the Congressional districts in 2010 (when the GOP won a wave midterm election) were the exact same as they were in 2006 (when the Democrats won a wave midterm election).

Are you saying that there is no gerrymandering?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Whenever the issue of gerrymandering is brought up, I always like to point out that the Congressional districts in 2010 (when the GOP won a wave midterm election) were the exact same as they were in 2006 (when the Democrats won a wave midterm election).

Ok. Democratic turnout was lower in 2010. Democratic voters, especially younger voters, abandoned Obama and democratic congress members in 2010, then sat around wondering why the government came to a halt. Republicans were also rabid over "death panels".

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Whenever the issue of gerrymandering is brought up, I always like to point out that the Congressional districts in 2010 (when the GOP won a wave midterm election) were the exact same as they were in 2006 (when the Democrats won a wave midterm election).

Which means nothing, of course. Gerrymandering happens on a state level.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Are you saying that there is no gerrymandering?

I'm saying that it almost certainly doesn't have the kind of impact on outcomes that many people think it does.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Which means nothing, of course. Gerrymandering happens on a state level.

Well, yes. So?

 

[meridian]

I'm saying that it almost certainly doesn't have the kind of impact on outcomes that many people think it does.

If that were the case, why are they risking their reputation? People usually risk in order to gain extraordinary rewards.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, yes. So?

So it's less likely for it to have a dramatic effect on the makeup of the entire House than it is to have a dramatic effect on the makeup of state delegations (PA) or state legislatures (WI).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So it's less likely for it to have a dramatic effect on the makeup of the entire House than it is to have a dramatic effect on the makeup of state delegations (PA) or state legislatures (WI).

Well, I have no beef with your latter example. That seems self evident. But "the entire makeup of the House" is just a conglomeration of 50 state delegations, n'est-ce pas?

Do you realize how many times I've been told that the Republican House majority (since 2010, anyway) is in no small part the result of gerrymandering?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, I have no beef with your latter example. That seems self evident. But "the entire makeup of the House" is just a conglomeration of 50 state delegations, n'est-ce pas?

But not every state's districts are drawn by the same party, and some states already have nonpartisan commissions to do the job, which means the overall effect of one gerrymandering delegation is tempered.

Do you realize how many times I've been told that the Republican House majority (since 2010, anyway) is in no small part the result of gerrymandering?

The Democrats won more votes in 2012, and still fell 30 seats short of the GOP. Gerrymandering is certainly one reason why. As for other years, especially 2014 and 2016, one could easily argue that the GOP's advantage in the House was expanded by gerrymandering, even if they would have won a majority no matter what. But that still doesn't really matter. Whether or not someone makes a bigger deal about it to you than it deserves, or whether or not you try to downplay it in respond, who cares? Gerrymandering happens. We all know it. This isn't some deep, dark secret.