• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A solution to partisan gerrymandering, the shortest splitline algorithm?

NatMorton said:
Ah, no. I'm trying to take racial discrimination out of Congressional district drawing. Moving to a race-neutral approach might be bad news for those who, to this point, have been benefiting from racial discrimination, but removing that benefit is not, itself, and act of racial discrimination. It's precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...
We would all love that, but that isn't the result of SCOTUS ruling like we all know they are about to rule. "Everything in the world is race neutral" just isn't one of the options being presented to you. Systemic racism absolutely does exist no matter how often the right pretends that it ended with the civil rights act. The mathematical approach in the OP would be great, but the people who have to vote such a measure in are the very people benefiting - and about to benefit a great deal more - from gerrymandering. Same issue as trying to vote in term limits or cutting congressional salaries when the government is shut down. You're asking these people to vote against their own interests, good luck with that.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. We can't pretend history doesn't exist, because history is why these laws were written in the first place. These districts exist specifically because the GOP keeps breaking the law and actively suppressing minority representation. If you take away the law that stops them from doing so, then they will do it.
 
Anagram said:
It is harder to create a Republican district in MA than one might think. It's possible certainly, but you have to actually try for it.

You can play around with the below website and see.

davesredistricting.org

DRA 2020

A free app to create, analyze and share redistricting maps for any state.
davesredistricting.org
Click to expand...
... and an interesting site, thank you.

And it's not that hard for MA. Here's one, and if I'm reading this presentation correctly, it creates three majority Republican districts, which jibes with just over a third of MA voters voting for Trump in 2024.

1760651877006.webp

Source: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::b47511be-53f8-41b7-8058-d7dd7dfafefd
 
Deuce said:
We would all love that, but that isn't the result of SCOTUS ruling like we all know they are about to rule. "Everything in the world is race neutral" just isn't one of the options being presented to you. Systemic racism absolutely does exist no matter how often the right pretends that it ended with the civil rights act. The mathematical approach in the OP would be great, but the people who have to vote such a measure in are the very people benefiting - and about to benefit a great deal more - from gerrymandering. Same issue as trying to vote in term limits or cutting congressional salaries when the government is shut down. You're asking these people to vote against their own interests, good luck with that.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. We can't pretend history doesn't exist, because history is why these laws were written in the first place. These districts exist specifically because the GOP keeps breaking the law and actively suppressing minority representation. If you take away the law that stops them from doing so, then they will do it.
Click to expand...
Where and when you find examples of systemic racism, you are welcome to challenge them in court, just as racial gerrymandering is being challenged.
 
NatMorton said:
... and an interesting site, thank you.

And it's not that hard for MA. Here's one, and if I'm reading this presentation correctly, it creates three majority Republican districts, which jibes with just over a third of MA voters voting for Trump in 2024.

View attachment 67593430

Source: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::b47511be-53f8-41b7-8058-d7dd7dfafefd
Click to expand...
I mean I am counting 10 enclaves that are cut out of the red districts and attached with only what appears to be a road. These are not the types of districts which would ever be made except by someone intentionally trying to create Republican districts.

If you had 100 people create districts for Massachusetts without any data or knowledge on party affiliation, I am guessing fewer than 5 would have a Republican district.
 
Anagram said:
I mean I am counting 10 enclaves that are cut out of the red districts and attached with only what appears to be a road. These are not the types of districts which would ever be made except by someone intentionally trying to create Republican districts.

If you had 100 people create districts for Massachusetts without any data or knowledge on party affiliation, I am guessing fewer than 5 would have a Republican district.
Click to expand...
So what? The debate here is not whether it's possible to create GOP districts in MA. The debate is whether we should do away with politicians drawing such maps and go with something that is algorithmic. We're also debating whether racial gerrymander is or is not a form of racial discrimination and whether any minority group is owed proportional representation.
 
NatMorton said:
So what? The debate here is not whether it's possible to create GOP districts in MA. The debate is whether we should do away with politicians drawing such maps and go with something that is algorithmic. We're also debating whether racial gerrymander is or is not a form of racial discrimination and whether any minority group is owed proportional representation.
Click to expand...
I gave my opinion on that earlier in the thread. But you were also debating whether Massachusetts map's were entirely Democratic due to gerrymandering, and while there is no doubt Democrats have attempted to maximize their seats to withstand a wave, its just true that the geography in Massachusetts means that an ungerrymandered (defined here as a map with no consideration for partisanship) map would still likely have all Democrats.
 
NatMorton said:
... and an interesting site, thank you.

And it's not that hard for MA. Here's one, and if I'm reading this presentation correctly, it creates three majority Republican districts, which jibes with just over a third of MA voters voting for Trump in 2024.

View attachment 67593430

Source: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::b47511be-53f8-41b7-8058-d7dd7dfafefd
Click to expand...

Well, what it does is make 6 districts D+50, and 3 districts R+1 or 2.

But notwithstanding it's ludicrous shape, on a moral level I have no problem with that map. I doubt any state, let alone Massachusetts, would have the balls to go this buckwild, but I wouldn't be mad at some delusional lawmaker introducing a bill.
 
Anagram said:
I gave my opinion on that earlier in the thread. But you were also debating whether Massachusetts map's were entirely Democratic due to gerrymandering, and while there is no doubt Democrats have attempted to maximize their seats to withstand a wave, its just true that the geography in Massachusetts means that an ungerrymandered (defined here as a map with no consideration for partisanship) map would still likely have all Democrats.
Click to expand...
No, not really. What we were discussing was whether a minority group -- any minority group -- is owed proportional representation. My argument is that they are not, and I was demonstrating that by pointing out MA has 37% Trump voters and not a single GOP rep in over three decades. That is almost certainly the product of political gerrymandering. If you checked out that DRA site, there are far less tortured maps that create one or two GOP majority districts. But the Dems here in MA are doing what the GOP is doing in Texas, seizing an advantage.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, what it does is make 6 districts D+50, and 3 districts R+1 or 2.

But notwithstanding it's ludicrous shape, on a moral level I have no problem with that map. I doubt any state, let alone Massachusetts, would have the balls to go this buckwild, but I wouldn't be mad at some delusional lawmaker introducing a bill.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with how we're drawing districts now. It is simply beyond reason to think either the GOP or the Democrats, when in charge, will not use their authority for political advantage. It's a longstanding flaw in the system, and we should do something about it, and that something is something like the approach cited in the OP.
 
NatMorton said:
What you haven't realized yet is that any argument you make for denying Trump voters in MA proportional representation can be made against a black minority population in MA, and the only reason you continue to defend black proportional representation over other groups is that you're -- get ready for it -- discriminating based on race.
Click to expand...

🤣

Trump voters are not a race.

NatMorton said:
Now, if you want to make the argument why we should change the Civil Rights Act and discriminate based on race when it comes to drawing Congressional districts, by all means do. But if you're going to try and argue that you're not discriminating based on race, don't bother. What you're arguing for absolutely does that.
Click to expand...

Again, you need to actually read the VRA, in the relevant part (to this conversation, at least):

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).

You guys have this idea that acknowledging race is itself racism. Read the law. Trump supporters aren't a race.
 
NatMorton said:
No, not really. What we were discussing was whether a minority group -- any minority group -- is owed proportional representation. My argument is that they are not, and I was demonstrating that by pointing out MA has 37% Trump voters and not a single GOP rep in over three decades. That is almost certainly the product of political gerrymandering. If you checked out that DRA site, there are far less tortured maps that create one or two GOP majority districts. But the Dems here in MA are doing what the GOP is doing in Texas, seizing an advantage.
Click to expand...
It's also been more than three decades since a Republican has won a single county in Massachusetts. And those are arbitrary lines not picked for partisanship. The geography does not lend itself to a Republican representative naturally. Yes you can make one or two Republican seats in map that is less tortured than that extremely tortured 3 representative map, but they are still not the type of districts that would be made unless intentionally trying to make Republican ones. That is all I am saying.

The splitline Massachusetts map, for instance, looks as though it would certainly be all Democratic seats despite no partisan gerrymandering there.

I do agree with you that no one is owed proportional representation. I do not like that test when used to determine political gerrymandering.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
🤣

Trump voters are not a race.
Click to expand...
Never said they were.

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Again, you need to actually read the VRA, in the relevant part (to this conversation, at least):

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).

You guys have this idea that acknowledging race is itself racism. Read the law. Trump supporters aren't a race.
Click to expand...
You should read that more carefully. A black person in a minority black district is in no way denied the right to vote.
 
NatMorton said:
I have a problem with how we're drawing districts now. It is simply beyond reason to think either the GOP or the Democrats, when in charge, will not use their authority for political advantage.
Click to expand...

Of course they will. They have since the beginning. Eldridge Gerry is a Founding Father.

NatMorton said:
It's a longstanding flaw in the system, and we should do something about it, and that something is something like the approach cited in the OP.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a flaw in the system, I think it is the system. It's the American Way - It puts the decision in the hands of the people (who the people elect).

"Let the computers decide!" is not what we do.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Of course they will. They have since the beginning. Eldridge Gerry is a Founding Father.



I don't think it's a flaw in the system, I think it is the system. It's the American Way - It puts the decision in the hands of the people (who the people elect).
Click to expand...
There's no reason why we cannot change. Slavery used to be part of the system. Senators used to be appointed, not elected. Women were not allowed to vote.

Change can be good.

TheDoctorWasIn said:
"Let the computers decide!" is not what we do.
Click to expand...
And it's not what the OP calls for. I suggest you read it again. You're not following it. (And I think you may not understand how computers work, BTW).
 
NatMorton said:
Never said they were.
Click to expand...

It is certainly possible that I misunderstood your post, it was hard to read and I couldn't really follow it.

This is what you said:

NatMorton said:
What you haven't realized yet is that any argument you make for denying Trump voters in MA proportional representation can be made against a black minority population in MA, and the only reason you continue to defend black proportional representation over other groups is that you're -- get ready for it -- discriminating based on race.
Click to expand...

Who is being discriminated against on the basis of race? You were talking about Trump voters before, so I assumed they were the victims in your hypothetical.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
It is certainly possible that I misunderstood your post, it was hard to read and I couldn't really follow it.

This is what you said:



Who is being discriminated against on the basis of race? You were talking about Trump voters before, so I assumed they were the victims in your hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Any racial group not afforded the benefit of proportional representation. For example, you create a black majority district but not a Hispanic majority district.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom