Another setback for the Right Wing and the GOP

[T.G.G. Moogly]

U.S. judges order Ohio to revamp Republican-drawn gerrymandered districts

(Reuters) - A panel of three federal judges on Friday ruled that Ohio's Republican-drawn congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and ordered the state to revamp it before the 2020 presidential election.

The ruling comes a week after another federal court ruled that Michigan's congressional maps were unconstitutionally drawn by Republican politicians to dilute the power of Democratic voters.

Both Michigan and Ohio are expected to play a pivotal role in the 2020 election, as they have in recent elections. They were key swing states in Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory.

Sadly I think SCOTUS will scuttle such progress, but it's good to see.

 

[Tigers!]

U.S. judges order Ohio to revamp Republican-drawn gerrymandered districts

(Reuters) - A panel of three federal judges on Friday ruled that Ohio's Republican-drawn congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and ordered the state to revamp it before the 2020 presidential election.

The ruling comes a week after another federal court ruled that Michigan's congressional maps were unconstitutionally drawn by Republican politicians to dilute the power of Democratic voters.

Both Michigan and Ohio are expected to play a pivotal role in the 2020 election, as they have in recent elections. They were key swing states in Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory.

Sadly I think SCOTUS will scuttle such progress, but it's good to see.

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

U.S. judges order Ohio to revamp Republican-drawn gerrymandered districts

(Reuters) - A panel of three federal judges on Friday ruled that Ohio's Republican-drawn congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and ordered the state to revamp it before the 2020 presidential election.

The ruling comes a week after another federal court ruled that Michigan's congressional maps were unconstitutionally drawn by Republican politicians to dilute the power of Democratic voters.

Both Michigan and Ohio are expected to play a pivotal role in the 2020 election, as they have in recent elections. They were key swing states in Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory.

Sadly I think SCOTUS will scuttle such progress, but it's good to see.

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

This sort of thing is delegated to the states. Some do have an independent board that does drawing of election maps. But in others, this is avoided to unfairly gerrymander elections. Resulting in lawsuits instead of sane ways of drawing maps. The GOP has done well by doing this and will fight having a neutral committee drawing the maps as long as they are in control and are profiting by gerrymandering. There are Democratic efforts now to fight this at the Congressional level, but as long as Mitch McConnell runs the GOP Senate, this effort is not going to go anywhere.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text

H.R. 1
To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.
.....
Sec. 2401. Requiring congressional redistricting to be conducted through plan of independent State commission.
Sec. 2402. Ban on mid-decade redistricting.

 

[prideandfall]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?

because america was founded by the dictates of the richest and most elite of a cabal of paranoid drug addled snobs who only cared about the economics of breaking off from being a colony of england, who were dealing with a teeming horde of backwood
slave owners who controlled ginormous portions of the landmass under their control, so basically everything in the foundational documents and ethos of the US as a country is one giant lubricated asshole being offered to the southern states in order to ensure their cooperation in telling england to go fuck itself.

or, being less caustically cynical:
at its foundation the US was only barely a single country, being much more comparable to the EU - a loosely affiliated group of independent territories that worked together but resisted the idea of a single governing body.
it wasn't really until the mid-late 1800s and the civil war when the concept of the american federal government being the sole officiated body of the country really became a thing, up until then the states were practically separate countries just held together loosely by trade agreements.
because of that, each state set up its functions however the hell they wanted to, based on whatever cronyism worked best for the opportunistic psychopaths who were in charge at the time.

Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

ours are drawn purely on the whim of the party in power at the time.

if one party gets a sufficient majority to vote in a district map, they can redraw it in such a way that they can never lose power and can never have their changes be voted down.

 

[Patooka]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

Ask and ye shall receive:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ&t=1s[/youtube]

 

[Angry Floof]

U.S. judges order Ohio to revamp Republican-drawn gerrymandered districts

(Reuters) - A panel of three federal judges on Friday ruled that Ohio's Republican-drawn congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and ordered the state to revamp it before the 2020 presidential election.

The ruling comes a week after another federal court ruled that Michigan's congressional maps were unconstitutionally drawn by Republican politicians to dilute the power of Democratic voters.

Both Michigan and Ohio are expected to play a pivotal role in the 2020 election, as they have in recent elections. They were key swing states in Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory.

Sadly I think SCOTUS will scuttle such progress, but it's good to see.

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

I don't know why it's been this way for so long, but some states are now passing legislation for just that, an independent body drawing the lines instead of the politicians who will benefit from it.

I'm hoping it catches on to all states, but one obstacle is Republican claims that these efforts are supported by Democrats and therefore it's a partisan solution. Yep, they think the idea of taking gerrymandering away from ALL parties equates to giving it to Dems.

If anything good comes from the Trump shitshow, I hope it's that we at least put Republican stupidity out to pasture once and for all.

 

[bilby]

Wayne Goss managed to eliminate the Joh Bjelke-Petersen gerrymander, so there's hope for anyone.

About a week after my arrival in Australia, I was waiting on a crowded corner to cross Elizabeth Street in Brisbane, and struck up a conversation with a familiar looking chap who was standing next to me. It wasn't until I saw him on the news a couple of days later that I realised where I knew him from - it was Wayne Goss, State Premier, on his way from the Treasury back to Parliament.

Reminded me of this:[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV_O3BA5e28[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Tigers!]

Wayne Goss managed to eliminate the Joh Bjelke-Petersen gerrymander, so there's hope for anyone.

IIRC Joh perfected the gerrymander that the Labour party had introduced.

Both major parties have had their grubby hands on the gerrymandering.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

And how do you ensure the people on the body are independent? The GOP would simply appoint people who would agree with them.

And they are drawn by population--it's just there are multiple ways you could draw the lines to get equal population and the gerrymanderers look at voter affiliation in deciding where to place the lines--give Democrats a huge advantage in one area and a minority in many other areas.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Wayne Goss managed to eliminate the Joh Bjelke-Petersen gerrymander, so there's hope for anyone.

IIRC Joh perfected the gerrymander that the Labour party had introduced.

Both major parties have had their grubby hands on the gerrymandering.

True. But the dems are mere amateurs compared to the republicans. Only the republicans are able to win election after election despite substantially less voters.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

And how do you ensure the people on the body are independent? The GOP would simply appoint people who would agree with them.

And they are drawn by population--it's just there are multiple ways you could draw the lines to get equal population and the gerrymanderers look at voter affiliation in deciding where to place the lines--give Democrats a huge advantage in one area and a minority in many other areas.

The only solution is a law stating that votes from gerrymandered districts are fraudulent, therefore unlawful, therefore void. But is SCOTUS up to the challenge?

If SCOTUS was gerrymandered like these states, that would mean that the "majority" opinion would come from the minority of judges. Does SCOTUS understand this?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

I don't know why it's been this way for so long, but some states are now passing legislation for just that, an independent body drawing the lines instead of the politicians who will benefit from it.

I'm hoping it catches on to all states, but one obstacle is Republican claims that these efforts are supported by Democrats and therefore it's a partisan solution. Yep, they think the idea of taking gerrymandering away from ALL parties equates to giving it to Dems.

If anything good comes from the Trump shitshow, I hope it's that we at least put Republican stupidity out to pasture once and for all.

Most of the states that currently have non-partisan districting are, surprisingly (not!) not GOP dominated. So there is one party that is much more consistent about actually wanting fair elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission

 

[Angry Floof]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

I don't know why it's been this way for so long, but some states are now passing legislation for just that, an independent body drawing the lines instead of the politicians who will benefit from it.

I'm hoping it catches on to all states, but one obstacle is Republican claims that these efforts are supported by Democrats and therefore it's a partisan solution. Yep, they think the idea of taking gerrymandering away from ALL parties equates to giving it to Dems.

If anything good comes from the Trump shitshow, I hope it's that we at least put Republican stupidity out to pasture once and for all.

Most of the states that currently have non-partisan districting are, surprisingly (not!) not GOP dominated. So there is one party that is much more consistent about actually wanting fair elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission

True, but right wing authoritarian follower personalities don't understand that. They think the enemy thinks the same way they do, and if Dems support something, it must be opposed as partisan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

And how do you ensure the people on the body are independent? The GOP would simply appoint people who would agree with them.

And they are drawn by population--it's just there are multiple ways you could draw the lines to get equal population and the gerrymanderers look at voter affiliation in deciding where to place the lines--give Democrats a huge advantage in one area and a minority in many other areas.

The only solution is a law stating that votes from gerrymandered districts are fraudulent, therefore unlawful, therefore void. But is SCOTUS up to the challenge?

If SCOTUS was gerrymandered like these states, that would mean that the "majority" opinion would come from the minority of judges. Does SCOTUS understand this?

Unfortunately, gerrymandering is like pornography--very hard to define.

I think what we need is some fairly simple formulas that define where the boundaries go. My idea:

Define acceptable boundaries. My idea is a boundary line must either follow a major street or a geographic boundary (waterway, park, unoccupied terrain.) Chop the map up into a gazillion cells based on the acceptable boundaries. Now divide these up into districts such that the population per district is within 1% of every other district and you minimize the total boundary distance based on streets (do not count the barriers or edge of the state.) If this proves impossible (which I can't see happening) the solution is the one with the lowest difference.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The only solution is a law stating that votes from gerrymandered districts are fraudulent, therefore unlawful, therefore void. But is SCOTUS up to the challenge?

If SCOTUS was gerrymandered like these states, that would mean that the "majority" opinion would come from the minority of judges. Does SCOTUS understand this?

Unfortunately, gerrymandering is like pornography--very hard to define.

I think what we need is some fairly simple formulas that define where the boundaries go. My idea:

Define acceptable boundaries. My idea is a boundary line must either follow a major street or a geographic boundary (waterway, park, unoccupied terrain.) Chop the map up into a gazillion cells based on the acceptable boundaries. Now divide these up into districts such that the population per district is within 1% of every other district and you minimize the total boundary distance based on streets (do not count the barriers or edge of the state.) If this proves impossible (which I can't see happening) the solution is the one with the lowest difference.

Non gerrymandered districts would be trivial with modern Finite Element Meshing algorithms. It would be pretty easy to give the criteria to the software, and it would create districts for state, federal, and local elections in a matter of minutes. And it also be trivially easy to check, so one wouldn't have to realistically worry about it being hacked, or tweaked by a partisan source.

 

[Angry Floof]

The only solution is a law stating that votes from gerrymandered districts are fraudulent, therefore unlawful, therefore void. But is SCOTUS up to the challenge?

If SCOTUS was gerrymandered like these states, that would mean that the "majority" opinion would come from the minority of judges. Does SCOTUS understand this?

Unfortunately, gerrymandering is like pornography--very hard to define.

I think what we need is some fairly simple formulas that define where the boundaries go. My idea:

Define acceptable boundaries. My idea is a boundary line must either follow a major street or a geographic boundary (waterway, park, unoccupied terrain.) Chop the map up into a gazillion cells based on the acceptable boundaries. Now divide these up into districts such that the population per district is within 1% of every other district and you minimize the total boundary distance based on streets (do not count the barriers or edge of the state.) If this proves impossible (which I can't see happening) the solution is the one with the lowest difference.

It's easy, at least in general terms. Gerrymandering is politicians redrawing district lines to benefit themselves in elections. It's just called redrawing districts when it's done for more neutral and mundane reasons, such as changes in population numbers in different areas.

A famous example of partisan redrawing of districts for partisan purposes was when a district ended up looking like a salamander by a governor named Gerry something or other, even though his name was pronounced with the hard G.

So that's what gerrymandering is and why it's called gerrymandering.

In broad terms, whatever the details, the solution is to have district lines NOT drawn by politicians.

As I mentioned before, some states are legislating changes along those lines (pun intended), but Republicans think that objective third-parties drawing district lines must be partisan because Democrats support such measures. Because making things more fair for everyone is antithesis to right wing authoritarian mentality and must be opposed regardless of the facts.

 

[Tigers!]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

And how do you ensure the people on the body are independent? The GOP would simply appoint people who would agree with them.

And they are drawn by population--it's just there are multiple ways you could draw the lines to get equal population and the gerrymanderers look at voter affiliation in deciding where to place the lines--give Democrats a huge advantage in one area and a minority in many other areas.

You yanks have more trouble than I realised. If you cannot appoint a neutral body for this then you are truly stuffed.

You don't look at voter affiliation, just look at population.

That is why compulsory voting beats voluntary. Voter affiliation is not an issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why aren't your electorates drawn up by an independent body answerable to the state parliament or its equivalent?
Or what is the criterion for determining the boundaries? In Australia it is population.
Are yours drawn based upon voters affiliations?

And how do you ensure the people on the body are independent? The GOP would simply appoint people who would agree with them.

And they are drawn by population--it's just there are multiple ways you could draw the lines to get equal population and the gerrymanderers look at voter affiliation in deciding where to place the lines--give Democrats a huge advantage in one area and a minority in many other areas.

You yanks have more trouble than I realised. If you cannot appoint a neutral body for this then you are truly stuffed.

You don't look at voter affiliation, just look at population.

That is why compulsory voting beats voluntary. Voter affiliation is not an issue.

How do you appoint a non-partisan committee when the appointers are partisan?

 

[Angry Floof]

You yanks have more trouble than I realised. If you cannot appoint a neutral body for this then you are truly stuffed.

You don't look at voter affiliation, just look at population.

That is why compulsory voting beats voluntary. Voter affiliation is not an issue.

How do you appoint a non-partisan committee when the appointers are partisan?

At the very least, you appoint an independent entity and stop allowing the politicians themselves to take part in redrawing district lines.

Are you really waiting for perfection before you would agree to remove the politicians themselves from the process?

 

[bilby]

You yanks have more trouble than I realised. If you cannot appoint a neutral body for this then you are truly stuffed.

You don't look at voter affiliation, just look at population.

That is why compulsory voting beats voluntary. Voter affiliation is not an issue.

How do you appoint a non-partisan committee when the appointers are partisan?

There are lots of ways you can do that. For example, you can establish a board of appointers whose rules require it to consist of equal or approximately numbers of members of each party, and also require a supermajority or even unanimity for any decisions. Such a board cannot make appointments at all unless the parties agree that a candidate is not partizan.