Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

[unofan]

No idea.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what part would?

Joe thinks the Voting Rights Act requires discriminating based on race against White people.

[joecct]

Joe thinks the Voting Rights Act requires discriminating based on race against White people.

Take a ex-lax.

[unofan]

Take a ex-lax.

I notice you didn't refute my point.

[LynahFan]

Why should that ever be the goal?

There should be one goal, and one goal alone. The districts should be created to create, as near as possible, identical population totals in each district, and to do so in the most geometrically normal way. Anything else should automatically be deemed unconstitutional. This idea that we need two "safe" minority districts because we have five "safe" white districts or some such thing is crazy.

Geometry is your overriding concern? Really?

[SJHovey]

Re: Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

Geometry is your overriding concern? Really?

My overriding concern is "how many" are in the district. The minute anyone inquires "who" is in the district, then you are instantly making it about race, sex, national origin, party affiliation, etc..., and that is improper. At that point you forfeit all right to biatch about gerrymandering. If those are going to be the rules you want, don't whine when you are not in power and they work against you.

Divide them up mathematically in geometric sensible shapes. When you start departing from the geometric sensible shapes, then I know you are asking "who" is in the district.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

I don't like "geometry"; I'd prefer "geography". Making a district with a river down the middle and only one bridge and one polling station (so somebody has to cross) seems wrong.

But yes, just raw numbers of voters please, no "who" or "demographics" thank you.

[SJHovey]

Re: Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

I don't like "geometry"; I'd prefer "geography". Making a district with a river down the middle and only one bridge and one polling station (so somebody has to cross) seems wrong.

But yes, just raw numbers of voters please, no "who" or "demographics" thank you.

You start with geometry, but yes you ultimately have to reduce it to geography, since the boundary line needs to be identified by something recognizable, such as a street, highway, county line, etc...

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

My overriding concern is "how many" are in the district. The minute anyone inquires "who" is in the district, then you are instantly making it about race, sex, national origin, party affiliation, etc..., and that is improper. At that point you forfeit all right to biatch about gerrymandering. If those are going to be the rules you want, don't whine when you are not in power and they work against you.

Divide them up mathematically in geometric sensible shapes. When you start departing from the geometric sensible shapes, then I know you are asking "who" is in the district.

While having the logical appearance of being fair and unbiased it's obvious that, since we know who lives where, this results in heavily gerrymandering the district split strongly in favor of r's. Which is what d's are all *****ing about.

For example, let's say we have a state with 12 people. (not unlike ND) And, just pulling letters out of the sky here, let's call them "d's" and "r's". There are 8 d's and 4 r's. 6 of the d's all live next door to each other in their own little bubble and spend their days repeating gossip to each other and reinforcing how stupid all the r's are. The r's do the same, but since they are spread out and also have to spend hours actually making their own latte's rather than just picking one up, they have a bit less of an opportunity to gossip. At any rate, for practical reasons, like how many days wagon ride it is, and the lack of usable watering holes on the way to voting meets, etc., it's been decided to split the state into two districts for voting purposes. Since the 6 d's all live next door to one another, they naturally will be in one group and the remaining 4r's and 2d's in the other. Oddly, despite the 8 d's previously having an 8-4 voting advantage, everything now results in a deadlock.

What might actually be equitable is to have 3 r's + 3'd's vs. 5 d's + 1 r. But that would result in an odd shape, and shapes need to be nice, plus the d's want to go back to the old system, because r's are stupid and should have no say, and 8>4.

[Handyman]

Re: Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

So sayeth the guy who constantly links to 280 character statements and 30 second sound bytes (and yeah, Handy does too, and I don't like it anymore coming from him).

To be fair I do it so I dont have to watch CNN or buy a subscription to the NYTs Sometimes it is personal tweets from actual politicians but mostly just links to articles I think are relevant and come from reputable sources. (unlike say the Daily Mail or or the Washington Examiner)

Not saying you should like that better...but it isnt like I am posting tweets from @randomjackhole1 or something. Hell I dont even really know how to use twitter except to find articles of interest

[French Rage]

Re: Gerrymandering: Quick, Draw!

I don't like "geometry"; I'd prefer "geography". Making a district with a river down the middle and only one bridge and one polling station (so somebody has to cross) seems wrong.

But yes, just raw numbers of voters please, no "who" or "demographics" thank you.

Apportioning congressional districts and apportioning voting precincts are two completely different things.