ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

This isn't 100% on topic but it's kind of related. Has anyone been paying attention to the PA redistricting? The republican plan was too (PA state) unconstitutionally gerrymandered so it was rejected and went through the courts. The state supreme court had to get a plan drawn by an independent body because the legislature refused to put anything acceptable forward. This washington post article has some maps made with previous election results to compare the districts.

Gerrymandering is the inevitable result of limiting the members of the house. Complaining about gerrymandering is a waste of time, unless you want to get rid of the restriction on house members.

If you're talking about the electoral college, that's sort of true but that's by design anyway so I think it's fine. If you're talking about the house of representatives I'm going to reject that premise unless you can prove otherwise. That said, I don't know enough exactly to make an informed decision about whether the number of members in the house should go back to being strictly proportional. You can get the same effect (assuming you make gerrymandering strictly illegal like it should be) by just weighting votes based on the number of people in each representatives district and then the house works like it should without increasing the numbers.

So how would you ensure fair redistricting as populations change and shift in each state? No matter how you redraw districts, either R or D gets an advantage, it is impossible to avoid.

Are you going to pass laws that force republican and Democrat voters to move in pairs? To ensure fairness?

President Trump listened to people from the high school shooting. And he spoke to them sincerely from the heart.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

If you're talking about the electoral college, that's sort of true but that's by design anyway so I think it's fine. If you're talking about the house of representatives I'm going to reject that premise unless you can prove otherwise. That said, I don't know enough exactly to make an informed decision about whether the number of members in the house should go back to being strictly proportional. You can get the same effect (assuming you make gerrymandering strictly illegal like it should be) by just weighting votes based on the number of people in each representatives district and then the house works like it should without increasing the numbers.

So how would you ensure fair redistricting as populations change and shift in each state? No matter how you redraw districts, either R or D gets an advantage, it is impossible to avoid.

Are you going to pass laws that force republican and Democrat voters to move in pairs? To ensure fairness?

You're either not arguing in good faith or you have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody said anything about telling people where they can move, and just because you can't make things perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't make a good faith effort to minimize how bad they are. Do you even know what gerrymandering means or understand how redistricting is done at even a basic level?

For example, there is this thing called the census that is done every 10 years. You can google that yourself if you don't know what it is. When it gets done you can at least theoretically redo the districts so that they're fair at the time instead of specifically designing them to ensure voter suppression.

To answer your question, obviously you do not pass laws against people moving around freely. Demographic shifts happen and it's fine. Nobody said anything otherwise.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

For example, there is this thing called the census that is done every 10 years. You can google that yourself if you don't know what it is. When it gets done you can at least theoretically redo the districts so that they're fair at the time instead of specifically designing them to ensure voter suppression.

If by "theoretically" you mean under the hypothetical situation wherein political parties lose their own self-interest, then sure. Problem: they never will.

I've got a better idea: let's assume the polar opposite hypothesis, that is, that each political party will always advance redistricting proposals based solely on benefit to the party, then try their best to spin their proposals as fair, not really to the small handful of swing voters and nonpartisan journalists paying attention to a topic about as interesting as watching paint dry — because that group is virtually non-existent — but instead to their own base to manufacture their consent. This spin is trivially easy because confirmation bias.

Under that system, what we should expect is straight-up tyranny of the majority, which is disastrous under a hyper-partisan two-party system and only properly treated — but not cured — by multiparty politics that ensure the majority coalition at least consists of at least two parties reaching some kind of compromise. Even then, the party or parties not part of that coalition get shafted.

It's worth noting, however, that while the US is officially a two-party system, it is informally multiparty due to civil wars within the two parties — for example, MAGA vs NeverTrump Republicans like McCain, and Bernie Bros vs corporate Democrats. Thus, thankfully, the US is not actually at the worst-case scenario, although in my view of it the only way the people benefit is from an effective compromise between Team MAGA and the Bernie Bros. Which is, um, difficult.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

If you're talking about the electoral college, that's sort of true but that's by design anyway so I think it's fine. If you're talking about the house of representatives I'm going to reject that premise unless you can prove otherwise. That said, I don't know enough exactly to make an informed decision about whether the number of members in the house should go back to being strictly proportional. You can get the same effect (assuming you make gerrymandering strictly illegal like it should be) by just weighting votes based on the number of people in each representatives district and then the house works like it should without increasing the numbers.

So how would you ensure fair redistricting as populations change and shift in each state? No matter how you redraw districts, either R or D gets an advantage, it is impossible to avoid.

Are you going to pass laws that force republican and Democrat voters to move in pairs? To ensure fairness?

You're either not arguing in good faith or you have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody said anything about telling people where they can move, and just because you can't make things perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't make a good faith effort to minimize how bad they are. Do you even know what gerrymandering means or understand how redistricting is done at even a basic level?

For example, there is this thing called the census that is done every 10 years. You can google that yourself if you don't know what it is. When it gets done you can at least theoretically redo the districts so that they're fair at the time instead of specifically designing them to ensure voter suppression.

To answer your question, obviously you do not pass laws against people moving around freely. Demographic shifts happen and it's fine. Nobody said anything otherwise.

Incorrect. Fair would mean neither R or D gains an advantage when you redistrict, which is impossible; unless you pass absurd laws that track voter preference and redraw lines based on how you expect people to vote in the future.

Someone will be disenfranchised no matter how you redraw the district lines, so comlaining about that is stupid.

There's a difference between recognizing that some amount of Negative Drawback is unavoidable, and actively attempting to absolutely maximize Negative Drawback.

Gerrymandering is bullshit. Yes, redistricting will always end up shifting things a little bit one way or another. That's different than actively seeking to maximize the shifts in such a way as to marginalize and render irrelevant the highest possible number of votes. Any attempt to argue otherwise is idiotic and we should all know this.

Or, demographic distributions are a free market expression of the aggregate motivators that inform all life choices, and redrawing lines is pure fuckery that hinders these expressions from manifesting as democracy.

"

1453R wrote:

There's a difference between recognizing that some amount of Negative Drawback is unavoidable, and actively attempting to absolutely maximize Negative Drawback.

Gerrymandering is bullshit. Yes, redistricting will always end up shifting things a little bit one way or another. That's different than actively seeking to maximize the shifts in such a way as to marginalize and render irrelevant the highest possible number of votes. Any attempt to argue otherwise is idiotic and we should all know this.

Well, let's look at this logically: redrawing lines is unfair, but necessary (due to alternative of a fair system, but ever expanding house). Since redrawing district lines is always unfair,and politics is always about winning, it is only logical then, if you have the power, to redraw the lines to your advantage.

There can be no such thing as an "unbiased group" to redraw them, because no matter how you choose to draw them, one of the parties gets an advantage, unless, that is, you advocate a coin flip to decide every 10 years

Also: let us stick with a logical approach: why is a circle or rectangle deemed a "fair shape" but a salamander is an "unfair shape"? if using any of these 3 shapes results in an unfair advantage for one of the parties: why do people only complain about the salamander shape?
This is illogical.

"

1453R wrote:

Gerrymandering is bullshit. Yes, redistricting will always end up shifting things a little bit one way or another. That's different than actively seeking to maximize the shifts in such a way as to marginalize and render irrelevant the highest possible number of votes. Any attempt to argue otherwise is idiotic and we should all know this.

The problem is that the only difference is intent. If politicians shift a district to one party or another and it's an "accident" according to them, it's Kool and the Gang — especially if that politician is on "your team." So unless you have some kind of WikiLeaks email dump showing clear intent to redistrict unfairly, then there's effectively no penalty for redistricting unfairly. Plausible deniability is a bitch.

So yeah. You'd be waiting on a Julian Assange or maybe a James O'Keefe. You know, an actual journalist.

Must love fake news if a person considers dildo boat James O'Keefe a "real" journalist.