Gerrymander Argument Debunked

[Jimmy Higgins]

So anyway, the Canadians were kind enough to share with the US an example of the BS that is "Democrats just live in too tight an area, mainly urban, to win the House." Below is an electoral map showing us the nation of Canada and the breakdown of the districts (ridings for those up north).



Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

 

[Jayjay]

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

My guess is "white", just as it is in the US.

...Oh you meant on the map. Nevermind then.

 

[Rhea]

So anyway, the Canadians were kind enough to share with the US an example of the BS that is "Democrats just live in too tight an area, mainly urban, to win the House." Below is an electoral map showing us the nation of Canada and the breakdown of the districts (ridings for those up north).

View attachment 4521

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

Imma guess Blue.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah why would a Democrat-controled state legislature draw up a district like this?

 

[Derec]

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

54% is not a supermajority, much less a strong one. You will also notice that Liberals were not only strong in "small" (by area) districts in urban areas but also in "big" districts in more sparsely populated areas. So the urban/rural distinction is different in Canada - Canadian Liberals != US Democratic Party.
But Canada also shows a disconnect between popular vote and seats won inherent in FPTP systems. Liberals got 39% of votes but 54% of seats, Conservatives got 32% of the vote and 29% of the seats and NDP got 20% of the vote and 13% of the seats.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yeah why would a Democrat-controled state legislature draw up a district like this?

And you just made the OP's point without even knowing it. (I come from a state with an anti gerrymandering law.)

- - - Updated - - -

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

54% is not a supermajority, much less a strong one. You will also notice that Liberals were not only strong in "small" (by area) districts in urban areas but also in "big" districts in more sparsely populated areas. So the urban/rural distinction is different in Canada - Canadian Liberals != US Democratic Party.
But Canada also shows a disconnect between popular vote and seats won inherent in FPTP systems. Liberals got 39% of votes but 54% of seats, Conservatives got 32% of the vote and 29% of the seats and NDP got 20% of the vote and 13% of the seats.

Also the point that the top 3 red ridddlinge districts are territories with one seat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah why would a Democrat-controled state legislature draw up a district like this?

Wha? The OP is arguing that the argument stating that Democrats live in too tight of quarters to win a majority in the House and gerrymandering has little to do with it... is bullshit.

The OP is not arguing that the Democrats haven't gerrymandered. Nor is it saying the Republicans haven't gerrymandered.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

54% is not a supermajority, much less a strong one.

Fine, the term supermajority may be a bit overdone.

You will also notice that Liberals were not only strong in "small" (by area) districts in urban areas but also in "big" districts in more sparsely populated areas. So the urban/rural distinction is different in Canada - Canadian Liberals != US Democratic Party.

Exactly how many big red ridings did the Libs win? Six-ish?

My point still stands. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and even Winnipeg were the substantial reason for their victory. The Maritimes would be the Democrat's New England.

 

[dismal]

"Democrats just live in too tight an area, mainly urban, to win the House."

...

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

Trick question: they don't have Democrats in Canada.

 

[SimpleDon]

So anyway, the Canadians were kind enough to share with the US an example of the BS that is "Democrats just live in too tight an area, mainly urban, to win the House." Below is an electoral map showing us the nation of Canada and the breakdown of the districts (ridings for those up north).

View attachment 4521

Can you identify which color represents the party that won a strong super majority in their House of Commons, within reach of doubling the second best opposition party?

The main difference between the Liberal Party (the red riddings in the map) and the Democratic Party in the US is that the Liberals contest every one of the elections. The main problem with the Democrats in the US is that they concede more than half of the Congressional districts held by Republicans, offering either no candidates or sacrificial ones with no real chance of winning.

The Democrats whine about gerrymandering and yet don't do what needs to be done to correct it, to take control of state legislatures. To do this they have to find candidates to run, developing positive messages for those candidates to run on and providing them with money and other resources to mount effective campaigns.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah why would a Democrat-controled state legislature draw up a district like this?

I can't even see that as a rhetorical question, because this district MAKES NO SENSE. Riverside and LaGrange are sort of "battleground" districts that swing strongly democratic or strongly republican depending on the strength of the candidate running; the solidly democratic areas -- Hillside, Woodlawn, Oak Park, Austin, University Village -- are all being carefully avoided in this district. OTOH, Melrose Park and Northlake tend to lean Republican while those near-northside neighborhoods are populated by an odd combination of yuppies and gang bangers that invariably vote democratic.

Is it a strategic "split up the Republican blocs" thing? Is it a "get more minorities to vote with whites" thing? Because it seems like you could draw a simple rectangular district from Austin to Manheim, North Avenue to Cermak and get the exact same results. Probably BETTER results since the next district would be Austin to Cicero with the same north south bounds and would ALSO break Democratic; Loop and North Shore would go democratic too, so that's three in a row. South Side? Democratic. Southwest Suburbs? Republican if and when birth control is on the ballot, Democratic if anyone remembers Donald Trump exists.

It's almost as if the Democrats are trying really hard NOT to win elections...

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah why would a Democrat-controled state legislature draw up a district like this?

I can't even see that as a rhetorical question, because this district MAKES NO SENSE. Riverside and LaGrange are sort of "battleground" districts that swing strongly democratic or strongly republican depending on the strength of the candidate running; the solidly democratic areas -- Hillside, Woodlawn, Oak Park, Austin, University Village -- are all being carefully avoided in this district. OTOH, Melrose Park and Northlake tend to lean Republican while those near-northside neighborhoods are populated by an odd combination of yuppies and gang bangers that invariably vote democratic.

Is it a strategic "split up the Republican blocs" thing? Is it a "get more minorities to vote with whites" thing? Because it seems like you could draw a simple rectangular district from Austin to Manheim, North Avenue to Cermak and get the exact same results. Probably BETTER results since the next district would be Austin to Cicero with the same north south bounds and would ALSO break Democratic; Loop and North Shore would go democratic too, so that's three in a row. South Side? Democratic. Southwest Suburbs? Republican if and when birth control is on the ballot, Democratic if anyone remembers Donald Trump exists.

It's almost as if the Democrats are trying really hard NOT to win elections...

Isn't the idea of gerrymandering to create districts so that your supporters are narrow majority in districts where they are likely to win, and your opponents are grouped into districts where they would have won anyway. The problem is that when demographics or opinions sway a little those narrow majorities may turn into narrow minorities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The main difference between the Liberal Party (the red riddings in the map) and the Democratic Party in the US is that the Liberals contest every one of the elections. The main problem with the Democrats in the US is that they concede more than half of the Congressional districts held by Republicans, offering either no candidates or sacrificial ones with no real chance of winning.

The Democrats whine about gerrymandering and yet don't do what needs to be done to correct it, to take control of state legislatures. To do this they have to find candidates to run, developing positive messages for those candidates to run on and providing them with money and other resources to mount effective campaigns.

You're simply describing reality--there's a limit to how much things will change from one election to the next. If the Republicans got 70% of the vote in a district there is effectively zero chance the Democrats will win it next time--and vice versa.

My father was once one of those sacrificial candidates. He was up against an entrenched guy who got 80% of the vote in the previous election. He did very well--he got 25% of the vote. The only reason he ran at all was so the guy would have to stay home and campaign rather than help other candidates--no effect in his district but a chance of changing the outcome of other elections.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah why would a Democrat-controled state legislature draw up a district like this?

I can't even see that as a rhetorical question, because this district MAKES NO SENSE. Riverside and LaGrange are sort of "battleground" districts that swing strongly democratic or strongly republican depending on the strength of the candidate running; the solidly democratic areas -- Hillside, Woodlawn, Oak Park, Austin, University Village -- are all being carefully avoided in this district. OTOH, Melrose Park and Northlake tend to lean Republican while those near-northside neighborhoods are populated by an odd combination of yuppies and gang bangers that invariably vote democratic.

Is it a strategic "split up the Republican blocs" thing? Is it a "get more minorities to vote with whites" thing? Because it seems like you could draw a simple rectangular district from Austin to Manheim, North Avenue to Cermak and get the exact same results. Probably BETTER results since the next district would be Austin to Cicero with the same north south bounds and would ALSO break Democratic; Loop and North Shore would go democratic too, so that's three in a row. South Side? Democratic. Southwest Suburbs? Republican if and when birth control is on the ballot, Democratic if anyone remembers Donald Trump exists.

It's almost as if the Democrats are trying really hard NOT to win elections...

No--it's a matter of building safe districts that one party can count on winning. Assuming your description of the area is accurate it's a case of gathering all the trash together, not a case of making something desirable.

 

[zorq]

No--it's a matter of building safe districts that one party can count on winning. Assuming your description of the area is accurate it's a case of gathering all the trash together, not a case of making something desirable.

Not necessarily. There are several strategies to gerymandering. According to this pretty awesome youtube video 4 of the most popular gerymandering strategies are packing, cracking, kidnapping/hijacking, and bleaching.

Show

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh4qAJDUOcc[/YOUTUBE]

Packing: This is the most effective gerrymandering to pick up more districts. Draw all your strongest opponents into as few districts as possible and dilute the rest of your opponents into the rest of the districts.
Cracking: Used with Packing when there is some extra slack to further eliminate opponent seats. The best current example of this is how Austin TX, the most liberal city in the state has been essentially split into 5 different districts, one of which stretches almost to the mexico boarder and all of the 5 representatives are Republicans.
Kidnapping/hijacking: Popular incumbent opponent candidates are redistricted out of their previous representative neighborhood and forced to try getting elected in a new area that may be much more hostile to their politics.
Bleaching: Friendly incumbent candidates in volatile districts are redrawn to contain more friendly voters to help maintain their incumbency.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No--it's a matter of building safe districts that one party can count on winning. Assuming your description of the area is accurate it's a case of gathering all the trash together, not a case of making something desirable.

Not necessarily. There are several strategies to gerymandering. According to this pretty awesome youtube video 4 of the most popular gerymandering strategies are packing, cracking, kidnapping/hijacking, and bleaching.

Show

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh4qAJDUOcc[/YOUTUBE]

Packing: This is the most effective gerrymandering to pick up more districts. Draw all your strongest opponents into as few districts as possible and dilute the rest of your opponents into the rest of the districts.
Cracking: Used with Packing when there is some extra slack to further eliminate opponent seats. The best current example of this is how Austin TX, the most liberal city in the state has been essentially split into 5 different districts, one of which stretches almost to the mexico boarder and all of the 5 representatives are Republicans.
Kidnapping/hijacking: Popular incumbent opponent candidates are redistricted out of their previous representative neighborhood and forced to try getting elected in a new area that may be much more hostile to their politics.
Bleaching: Friendly incumbent candidates in volatile districts are redrawn to contain more friendly voters to help maintain their incumbency.

I suppose the fifth may be diluting. Ohio has a huge district in the west that overwhelms the population in Toledo, so what was a Democrat seat area becomes a marginally safe Republican seat.