Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More gop gerrymandering shenanigans struck down in texas

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Zach11k View Post

    So what's your argument here? That gerrymandering isn't really an issue in this case because it isn't going to work as intended?
    Because Hammy is clearly unaware of our districting process. And gerrymandering is something that been going on since our founding. There is no exact science to drawing a map so its something we have to live with

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by biker View Post

      Because Hammy is clearly unaware of our districting process. And gerrymandering is something that been going on since our founding. There is no exact science to drawing a map so its something we have to live with
      Originally posted by analhamster
      Originally posted by biker View Post

      Says the great political mind who thinks a redistricting in a GOP state will mean more Dem seats
      The basic process of gerrymandering is to make one super concentrated district of your opponents in order to make several slender majority districts of your supporters. I'd be interested if you can produce any 'political mind' who would agree with your contention that the result here will not be more dem seats. It's really kind of a no brainer analysis. The gerrymandering by the gop is going to be reversed. Why do you think they did it? Or are you trying to dispute the finding of the court that they did it at all?
      Seems like I've got a handle on it. Any response to what I said?

      There is actually a pretty exact science to drawing a map. There are also various proposed methods of drawing political districts using a more scientific approach, eg.-
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78437106001555

      Having biased party operatives draw them with a pencil is a choice, there are better approaches. Independent Boundaries Commissions that do their work in public and invite public review of their proposals are the approach taken here.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post



        Seems like I've got a handle on it. Any response to what I said?

        There is actually a pretty exact science to drawing a map. There are also various proposed methods of drawing political districts using a more scientific approach, eg.-
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78437106001555

        Having biased party operatives draw them with a pencil is a choice, there are better approaches. Independent Boundaries Commissions that do their work in public and invite public review of their proposals are the approach taken here.
        Here's the reality; If you truly attempt to get an equatable distribution, you will have far less minority reps.

        And having independent commission sounds like a cute and adorable thing to do, but another reality is that it must be approved by pols in the legislature and/or govs. For years when Dems controlled NC, they intentionally had a district where a stretch of it was just a 6 lane highway. For miles, all to protect their minority Dem rep.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by s.murph View Post
          The scary thing is that all the fluffers from Cali are dumping into Texas after making their state unlivable. They should have Texas fucked by 2020.
          I'm a native CA resident currently living in TX. Don't hate...I've lived here before. The Hill Country around Austin is already California Lite. Houston was still pretty red until Hurricane Katrina completely changed the demographics virtually overnight. Dallas' transformation is currently underway, as the migration of tech companies and their H1B jobs continues to increase. The far west and far east areas will always vote GOP. But with the large population centers continually turning blue and the geographically larger, but sparsely-populated areas staying red, yeah, it's becoming more and more like CA with each passing year.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by biker View Post

            Here's the reality; If you truly attempt to get an equatable distribution, you will have far less minority reps.

            And having independent commission sounds like a cute and adorable thing to do, but another reality is that it must be approved by pols in the legislature and/or govs. For years when Dems controlled NC, they intentionally had a district where a stretch of it was just a 6 lane highway. For miles, all to protect their minority Dem rep.
            So it's the usual line of american governance being so uniquely bad that the tried and tested solutions from around the world can just never be applied there. That's not actually true, when things get really bad major change does come, that's how you got things like the new deal and President Trump. Minority rule is being pushed pretty far right now through voter suppression and gerrymandering, eventually there'll be a pushback.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by biker View Post

              Because Hammy is clearly unaware of our districting process. And gerrymandering is something that been going on since our founding. There is no exact science to drawing a map so its something we have to live with
              There was a lawsuit in PA several years ago and one of the submissions to the court was a map created by a school teacher that demonstrated that it wasn't hard to create a fair map.

              Comment


              • #37
                What is a "fair map"?
                What does that mean?
                Wouldnt any undertaking of a "fair map" have to start off with a definition of the goal? IOW, what is the end game for this "fair map"?
                Replication of racial percentages?
                City and/or county boundaries?
                Is the goal to artificially increase minority areas? If so, how is that different than artificially decreasing minority areas?
                Is the goal equal population numbers with the areas?
                Is the goal geographical (urban/rural) in nature?
                My point is that every person may have a differing view of what constitutes a "fair map".

                Comment


                • #38
                  Gerrymandering is bullshit when any party does it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by CHEEZY08 View Post
                    What is a "fair map"?
                    What does that mean?
                    Wouldnt any undertaking of a "fair map" have to start off with a definition of the goal? IOW, what is the end game for this "fair map"?
                    Replication of racial percentages?
                    City and/or county boundaries?
                    Is the goal to artificially increase minority areas? If so, how is that different than artificially decreasing minority areas?
                    Is the goal equal population numbers with the areas?
                    Is the goal geographical (urban/rural) in nature?
                    My point is that every person may have a differing view of what constitutes a "fair map".
                    The end game is to have districts representing roughly equal numbers of voters, that is the basic point of the exercise. A fair map is one that meets that goal without considering whether any district favours one party or the other. Put that simple aim in the hands of an independent commission, or an open source computer program, and make them show their work on cpsan. Kinda hard to explain the elaborate shapes they come up with currently with without admitting to gerrymandering being the aim. There's really no need for secret deliberations on this.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Equal numbers of voters in areas that are physically connected is a pretty simple start.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Nebraska's is pretty simple.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X