An end to Gerrymandering?

[MrWonka]

But the whole point of Gerrymandering on the Federal level is for the purpose of maximizing HOUSE seats, and HOUSE seats are relegated to a specific voting district anyway.

How can you have voting "inefficiency" it a House race that is determined by district popular vote?

Simple if you'd read the article it explains it. An inefficient vote is any vote that is cast for the losing side in a district or any vote that is case above and beyond what was needed to win a district. If you look at the total # of inefficient votes cast be both parties in a state and there is a difference of more than 7% between the parties we know that the map as a whole is unfair and gives one political party a clear and sustained advantage in the state.

Do any states not have state wide Senate races?

The Senate is an entirely different problem. We're focusing mostly on house districts here although this could help prevent election rigging at the state and local level too I'm sure.

 

[Hawkeye10]

No, it's actually knowledge. The Supreme Court has already said that Gerrymandering violates the one person, one vote principle of the constitution, the only reason they haven't struck down district maps in the past is that there has been no way to objectively prove that a given map was gerrymandered to intentionally favor a political party. You could certainly see that the results of elections seemed to indicate that it was, but how much of it was luck, how much of it was good candidates winning over independents and how could a one insure that a given map would remain unbalanced over the course of an election of two.

Now we have that tool at our disposal. We can scientifically prove that a given district map will insure a ton of wasted votes by one party or another, and that the advantage is likely to persist for the length of time the map is in use.

I understand the argument, which is that the court with its allegedly superior rules claims to not know what everyone knows.

This is a problem with will.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Even in a republic the representation needs to approximate the actual will of the people.

Which is done via the Senate and Congress. Where the representatives that are chosen reside while deliberating. However the number of representatives there is are not chosen by the will of the people. It is chosen by how many people live in each state.

No, that's you who are confusing those things because you are the one claiming that 100 random assholes should get the same representation as 30,000 others.

And they should. Why are you against equal representation? Do you not know how representation works? If you do please tell me. (I'll bet you come back with the wrong answer)

 

[Dittohead not!]

No, it wouldn't because you could still easily end up with randomly drawn districts that overwhelming favor one political party or another. You still end up with extremists who refuse to work together and have absolutely no motivation to work together since they're a lock to win re-election no matter what.

That's a pretty good description of the current situation.

 

[jmotivator]

Simple if you'd read the article it explains it. An inefficient vote is any vote that is cast for the losing side in a district or any vote that is case above and beyond what was needed to win a district. If you look at the total # of inefficient votes cast be both parties in a state and there is a difference of more than 7% between the parties we know that the map as a whole is unfair and gives one political party a clear and sustained advantage in the state.

Then it is an silly concept and prone to more abuse than Gerrymandering. I don't think it would fly with Democrats anyway since "voter efficiency" schemes would not favor minority groups.

The Senate is an entirely different problem. We're focusing mostly on house districts here although this could help prevent election rigging at the state and local level too I'm sure.

I don't think that "voting efficiency" is the way to fix Gerrymandering. All it does is change the way that districts are gamed and break the bond between a Congressperson and a district that was intended.

Also, on a side note, the graphic explaining "vote inefficiency" is broken. By their own explanation the district drawing in the first example is not Red wasting zero votes, it is each party wasting all but one vote per district by their own argument.

Edit: And look at the Wisconsin 2016 interactive Map

The only place where the Dem inefficiency exceeds Republicans in in the hugely lopsided 4th District... what do you do with all of those votes? You could apply 100% of the overage to any of the surrounding districts and the Republicans would still win.. but if you incorporated the 4th into the surrounding districts the Dems would likely lose that seat.

 

[George50]

Why should cities get more of a say over those "cornfields in Iowa"? You want equal representation don't you? Both area's should have the same amount of say. Not more. Not less. Equal. Believe it or not the concerns of those in cornfield country are just as important as the concerns of those in the cities and they deserve just as much attention as the concerns of those in the cities.

I think you misread the constitution. It begins with "We the People", not "We the Corncobs". Corncobs don't get to vote.

 

[robertblake60]

Here's an interesting article from the WaPo about gerrymandering and if it were done based on compactness.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ithout-gerrymandering/?utm_term=.c537fed669fe

 

[Slyfox696]

Let's look at it this way. The bullhorn v the whisper. An apt analogy for this particular subject wouldn't you say? Particularly for what you have stated here?

I'll continue once you have answered.

You'll have to explain. A google search for your supposed analogy turned up nothing. Personally, I think you are just trying to distract from the fact you know you are wrong, but I'll give you a chance to explain.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You'll have to explain. A google search for your supposed analogy turned up nothing. Personally, I think you are just trying to distract from the fact you know you are wrong, but I'll give you a chance to explain.

Google search? Why would an analogy that I brought to the table be searchable in Google?

Anyways...

In your description of things the a few people would have more influence than a lot of people. That would make the few people the bullhorn. (bullhorns are loud so they are heard more readily = more influence) And the larger group of people would be the whisper. (whispers are not loud so they are harder to hear = less influence)

I admit I probably should have put this in the original post but I honestly thought that you would get the reference. But now, knowing this would you agree to this analogy?

 

[Praxas]

A well programmed computer could draw the lines over the whole USA.

A program is only as impartial as the programmer. Programs could still be an issue.

 

[d0gbreath]

A program is only as impartial as the programmer. Programs could still be an issue.

That's why I said a "well" programmed computer. Yes that would require impartial programmers. Or, a mix of 2 or 3 from each side that would require a unanimous decision to release the software.

 

[Praxas]

That's why I said a "well" programmed computer. Yes that would require impartial programmers. Or, a mix of 2 or 3 from each side that would require a unanimous decision to release the software.

Even in the programming world, there is no such thing as an impartial programmer. A few decades of dealing with programmers and software engineers has taught me that.

 

[poweRob]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...epublicans-nationwide/?utm_term=.6402065d6e67

Could we finally be on the verge of an end to Gerrymandering?

Everyone knows that Gerrymandering happens, and the courts have long said that it violates the constitution, but the problem forever has been how to prove that districts have been intentionally Gerrymandered in a consistent way that would make banning Gerrymandering possible. How can we enforce a law requiring districts to be drawn fairly?

The answer may finally have been found. It's called voter efficiency. Essentially it's the the number of votes that each party wasted in an election. Votes that did not help their party win an election at all. A vote is considered wasted if it is cast in a losing election, or if it's a surplus vote in a winning election. Since the goal of good gerrymandering is to insure that your party wins a high number of seats by a relatively low margin whereas your opponent only wins a very small number of seats, but with a huge margin. We can calculate how badly a state is gerrymandered based upon the discrepancy between the wasted votes for one party versus the other.

Right now there are 15 states who's efficiency gap exceeds 7% which is the margin by which the party with the advantage can be certain to maintain it's advantage from one election to the next. Out of those 15 states only two favor Democrats. If this decision is upheld and it is entirely possible that all of those states could be forced to redraw their districts before the 2018 election.

I think when 55% of the people vote for one party and end result of the election is that 60% of the opposite party retains power... that's a good sign to reset the districts. Gerrymandering is a disgusting rebuke of our governing system. I'd like to go to proportional representation so that our legislatures ALWAYS looks like the will of the people it represents.

 

[poweRob]

Why should cities get more of a say over those "cornfields in Iowa"? You want equal representation don't you? Both area's should have the same amount of say. Not more. Not less. Equal. Believe it or not the concerns of those in cornfield country are just as important as the concerns of those in the cities and they deserve just as much attention as the concerns of those in the cities.

That would be about as unequal representation as could be. One person owns a cornfield to you is as equal as 3 million people in NYC.

 

[Conservative]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...epublicans-nationwide/?utm_term=.6402065d6e67

Could we finally be on the verge of an end to Gerrymandering?

Everyone knows that Gerrymandering happens, and the courts have long said that it violates the constitution, but the problem forever has been how to prove that districts have been intentionally Gerrymandered in a consistent way that would make banning Gerrymandering possible. How can we enforce a law requiring districts to be drawn fairly?

The answer may finally have been found. It's called voter efficiency. Essentially it's the the number of votes that each party wasted in an election. Votes that did not help their party win an election at all. A vote is considered wasted if it is cast in a losing election, or if it's a surplus vote in a winning election. Since the goal of good gerrymandering is to insure that your party wins a high number of seats by a relatively low margin whereas your opponent only wins a very small number of seats, but with a huge margin. We can calculate how badly a state is gerrymandered based upon the discrepancy between the wasted votes for one party versus the other.

Right now there are 15 states who's efficiency gap exceeds 7% which is the margin by which the party with the advantage can be certain to maintain it's advantage from one election to the next. Out of those 15 states only two favor Democrats. If this decision is upheld and it is entirely possible that all of those states could be forced to redraw their districts before the 2018 election.

I wonder if there will ever come a time that the left accepts responsibility for defeat vs. always placing the blame on someone else. Gerrymandering didn't cause the Democrats to lose the Congress, Hillary and Obama did. It was the Hillary incompetence and the very poor economic and foreign policy results of Obama. The left will always focus on the Presidential elections while ignoring the Congressional Elections which are won by the popular vote in the state.

It is also true that the only people who believe individual voters are robots are the left. Most simply cannot accept the fact that their ideology flies in the face of the foundation upon which this country was built.

 

[poweRob]

Meh. Why are you even responding? What the poster suggests violates the Constitution. Representation in the House is based upon population.
Absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Exactly. That's where I was going to go with it next.

 

[Slyfox696]

Google search? Why would an analogy that I brought to the table be searchable in Google?

So you made up an phrase for an analogy which is not commonly known and you expected me to understand what you are talking about?

I mean, I appreciate the explanation, but yeah, we could have saved time if you had explained earlier.

In your description of things the a few people would have more influence than a lot of people. That would make the few people the bullhorn. (bullhorns are loud so they are heard more readily = more influence) And the larger group of people would be the whisper. (whispers are not loud so they are harder to hear = less influence)

I admit I probably should have put this in the original post but I honestly thought that you would get the reference. But now, knowing this would you agree to this analogy?

Umm...you do realize it is your scenario in which some get the bullhorn and some get only a whisper correct? It is in my argument in which everyone has an equal voice.

Are you saying you want the people in the rural areas to have much more influence than those in the city? I have no idea what you are getting at.

That would be about as unequal representation as could be. One person owns a cornfield to you is as equal as 3 million people in NYC.

Exactly. I don't think he understands though.

 

[JMaximus]

I think when 55% of the people vote for one party and end result of the election is that 60% of the opposite party retains power... that's a good sign to reset the districts. Gerrymandering is a disgusting rebuke of our governing system. I'd like to go to proportional representation so that our legislatures ALWAYS looks like the will of the people it represents.

The legislature, thankfully, isn't supposed to represent the will of the American people at large.

 

[poweRob]

The legislature, thankfully, isn't supposed to represent the will of the American people at large.

Legislatures. I was speaking of state legislatures as well as the federal level. And yes, they are here to ultimately represent the people. And they should reflect who they represent more accurately or else its not really representation at all.

 

[Kal'Stang]

....

Actually, there IS a problem with my idea. It's not that it wouldn't work. It's that it would only work if all representatives involved actually did their job and represented ALL of the people and not just those that agree with them.

That is, quite frankly, an impossibility. I had let my optimism for fairness and honorable people to over ride my understanding of people. That was a mistake. People are too self-centered and greedy for my idea to work. Especially those that have power. Such people will ALWAYS ignore those that they don't agree with and only represent those that agree with them. Regardless of anything else our representatives will ALWAYS only listen to only a part of the population that they are supposed to represent.

I withdraw my idea.

 

[robertblake60]

Actually, there IS a problem with my idea. It's not that it wouldn't work. It's that it would only work if all representatives involved actually did their job and represented ALL of the people and not just those that agree with them.

That is, quite frankly, an impossibility. I had let my optimism for fairness and honorable people to over ride my understanding of people. That was a mistake. People are too self-centered and greedy for my idea to work. Especially those that have power. Such people will ALWAYS ignore those that they don't agree with and only represent those that agree with them. Regardless of anything else our representatives will ALWAYS only listen to only a part of the population that they are supposed to represent.

I withdraw my idea.

You realize that it is impossible to please everyone, right?

What does a representative who listen's to ALL of the population they represent look like to you? Where does that politician vote on the Mexico border wall? Where does that politician vote on the Obamacare repeal? What type of supreme court justice does that politician support?

 

[JMaximus]

Legislatures. I was speaking of state legislatures as well as the federal level. And yes, they are here to ultimately represent the people. And they should reflect who they represent more accurately or else its not really representation at all.

My point.







Your head.

 

[poweRob]

My point.




Your head.

Great contribution there sport.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You realize that it is impossible to please everyone, right?

What does a representative who listen's to ALL of the population they represent look like to you? Where does that politician vote on the Mexico border wall? Where does that politician vote on the Obamacare repeal? What type of supreme court justice does that politician support?

There is a difference between pleasing everyone and listening to everyone. Yeah, you can't please everyone. But you CAN listen to everyone and consider what they have to say and even bring it up for consideration before others. That is what a Representative should do. They shouldn't listen to ONLY the people that elected them. And that is what we have now...at best. More often than not we actually have Representatives that only listen to those that will get them more power and more money.

 

[bluesmoke]

It isn't gerrymandering that is being struck down, in and of itself. It is the extent to where gerrymandering has gone. How this ends up may actually end all "gerrymandering". However, if only the rotten part of the apple was carved away, there would still be gerrymandering.