Gerrymandering back in SCOTUS

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

The Supreme Court will take up the most important gerrymandering case in more than a decade, it announced Monday.The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans. The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide

This will be interesting. It could give us an historical outcome... or not so much and SCOTUS punts. I think the one problem with Gerrymandering is defining a legal limit of it. It isn't like alcohol in the blood. One can look at the map and get a feeling for districts and gerrymandering, but how do you prescribe a system to prevent it in design? That can't be easy or even possible. SCOTUS lacks the authority, I believe, to even create such a process, all they can say is if something is not Constitutional and offer a little guidance.

Of course, with the newest court, who knows, maybe a 5-4 decision that makes gerrymandering completely alright.

 

[Elixir]

I keep wondering if there isn't some universal algorithm that could be legislated ... like maybe a maximum permissible ratio of perimeter/area for any district. (Probably too simple, but that's the jist of what I've been thinking.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can create a program that can do it well, but I don't think you can codify it.

 

[Elixir]

You can create a program that can do it well, but I don't think you can codify it.

Because...

Rethuglicans?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can create a program that can do it well, but I don't think you can codify it.

Because...

Rethuglicans?

No, because it is very hard. Proper districting requires a bit of touch and proper representation in different population centers across different states will vary. It can be done, but I think it is more feel and requires a group of committed people to proper districting than something explicitly encoded into law because of the massive amount of gray area.

Take Massachusetts for instance. How hard does it have to be tried to get a couple Republicans to represent that state? What about Texas, where over 2/3's of the reps are Republican, yet the state usually goes for a Republican Presidential Candidate by 15 pts, not around 40 pts.

How do you district for electoral fairness while appreciating the power of incumbancy?

 

[Elixir]

Because...

Rethuglicans?

No, because it is very hard. Proper districting requires a bit of touch and proper representation in different population centers across different states will vary. It can be done, but I think it is more feel and requires a group of committed people to proper districting than something explicitly encoded into law because of the massive amount of gray area.

Take Massachusetts for instance. How hard does it have to be tried to get a couple Republicans to represent that state? What about Texas, where over 2/3's of the reps are Republican, yet the state usually goes for a Republican Presidential Candidate by 15 pts, not around 40 pts.

How do you district for electoral fairness while appreciating the power of incumbancy?

Well, a universally applied algorithm would certainly result in some districts being weighted. But those slants would (should) end up being evenly distributed such that both sides would suffer/benefit equally in the big picture. Right now, all I see are Republican-drawn lines that are overtly designed to suppress Democratic representation.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think the one problem with Gerrymandering is defining a legal limit of it. It isn't like alcohol in the blood. One can look at the map and get a feeling for districts and gerrymandering, but how do you prescribe a system to prevent it in design? That can't be easy or even possible.

Abolish geographical electoral districts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the one problem with Gerrymandering is defining a legal limit of it. It isn't like alcohol in the blood. One can look at the map and get a feeling for districts and gerrymandering, but how do you prescribe a system to prevent it in design? That can't be easy or even possible.

Abolish geographical electoral districts.

That isn't a solution, it just got rid of the House of Representatives. What do you propose replaces geographical districts?

 

[Malintent]

Abolish geographical electoral districts.

That isn't a solution, it just got rid of the House of Representatives. What do you propose replaces geographical districts?

One first must answer the question, "Why are there geographical districts?". I suppose they are there to support the Electoral College, no? So what is THAT there for?

There already exists well established geographical boundaries. They are called State lines. Each state already has additional internal lines that distribute the population. They are called Postal (Zip) Codes. Why are these insufficient for whatever the purpose is?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That isn't a solution, it just got rid of the House of Representatives. What do you propose replaces geographical districts?

One first must answer the question, "Why are there geographical districts?". I suppose they are there to support the Electoral College, no? So what is THAT there for? There already exists well established geographical boundaries. They are called State lines. Each state already has additional internal lines that distribute the population. They are called Postal (Zip) Codes. Why are these insufficient for whatever the purpose is?

Good question.

 

[Deepak]

That isn't a solution, it just got rid of the House of Representatives. What do you propose replaces geographical districts?

One first must answer the question, "Why are there geographical districts?". I suppose they are there to support the Electoral College, no? So what is THAT there for?

There already exists well established geographical boundaries. They are called State lines. Each state already has additional internal lines that distribute the population. They are called Postal (Zip) Codes. Why are these insufficient for whatever the purpose is?

ZIP codes were designed for ease of mail delivery, not to group voters. There are, for example, codes which span states.

 

[Elixir]

One first must answer the question, "Why are there geographical districts?". I suppose they are there to support the Electoral College, no? So what is THAT there for? There already exists well established geographical boundaries. They are called State lines. Each state already has additional internal lines that distribute the population. They are called Postal (Zip) Codes. Why are these insufficient for whatever the purpose is?

Good question.

"There are approximately 43,000 ZIP Codes in the United States. This number fluctuates from month to month..."

43,000, 435 representatives... So almost 100 zip codes would have be aggregated (on average) to form one congressional district. How do you pick 'em? I see gerrymandering opportunity!

Maybe area codes would be a better choice, but some of them would need to be split up (there are only 265-293 area codes in the US).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I keep wondering if there isn't some universal algorithm that could be legislated ... like maybe a maximum permissible ratio of perimeter/area for any district. (Probably too simple, but that's the jist of what I've been thinking.)

Why would there need to be a "program" for that? Wouldn't it make more sense to draw congressional districts along actual municipal districts? E.G. a city has a certain number of representatives, a town or a collection of nearby towns have another? Why would we even want to draw districts whose lines have no connection to anything the voters would actually represent?

 

[Elixir]

I keep wondering if there isn't some universal algorithm that could be legislated ... like maybe a maximum permissible ratio of perimeter/area for any district. (Probably too simple, but that's the jist of what I've been thinking.)

Why would there need to be a "program" for that? Wouldn't it make more sense to draw congressional districts along actual municipal districts?

To ensure objectivity.

E.G. a city has a certain number of representatives, a town or a collection of nearby towns have another?

That's how they getcha - cherrypick towns where the opposition lies, and group them with larger towns of your own persuasion so their votes don't count.

Why would we even want to draw districts whose lines have no connection to anything the voters would actually represent?

To make sure that YOUR interests rather than those of the voters are represented, of course. That's what the 'pugs have been doing for many years.

 

[jonatha]

This can be done using simulated annealing, with a random initial distribution of "seed crystals".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Each state already has additional internal lines that distribute the population. They are called Postal (Zip) Codes. Why are these insufficient for whatever the purpose is?

Well, I live in two of them...
Or at least, my official addresses have two different codes.
There's one for the city we live in and one for the post office box that's downtown.

 

[dismal]

That isn't a solution, it just got rid of the House of Representatives. What do you propose replaces geographical districts?

One first must answer the question, "Why are there geographical districts?". I suppose they are there to support the Electoral College, no? So what is THAT there for?

There already exists well established geographical boundaries. They are called State lines. Each state already has additional internal lines that distribute the population. They are called Postal (Zip) Codes. Why are these insufficient for whatever the purpose is?

The Constitution does not specify there must be geographical districts that I can see. The manner of electing representatives is left to the states.

 

[Malintent]

Why is it not the case that people vote for the candidate that they want, and the candidate that gets the most votes wins? Anything more complex than that is poorly defensible. My (limited) understanding of our current system is that it is a relic of an age when slaves were freed and the fear was they would vote whitey out of power. So, the current system was formed to ensure black people retained their "fraction of a person" status. Is that incorrect? What is the current justification for anything other than a "straight vote"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is the current justification for anything other than a "straight vote"?

If we went by straight population, the candidates would only show interest in the population centers.
If Trump were to promise, say, to lower taxes in the 25 most populous cities (or whatever is the minimum number of cities to reach 51% of the population), and gain voters there, and jack up taxes everywhere else, the disaffected would be powerless to express their discontent or force him to pay them any attention.
Every state would become a fly-over state, except for the biggest cities.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The Washington Post has an article on this today that explains things pretty well.

The takeaway:

In the end, the Brennan analysis suggests the GOP won between 25 and 37 extra seats in the 2012 election because of its redistricting advantage. In 2014, the advantage was smaller — between four and 20 seats — and in 2016 it got bigger again, with a GOP gain of between 16 and 29 seats.And here's the key takeaway: Those shifts were good enough to hand Republicans the majority in 2012 and potentially in 2016, too. Given the GOP had a 234-201 majority after the 2012 election, shifting 25 seats would have given Democrats a 226-209 majority. And that's Brennan's most GOP-friendly estimate; if 37 seats flipped, Democrats would have held a 238-197 majority.