Gerrymandering
 

Gerrymandering is a particularly distasteful maneuver politicians use to influence elections in favor of a party or even a powerful incumbent.

http://cellar.org/2015/How_to_Steal_...dering_svg.jpg

The scumbag politicians in North Carolina have created #1, the worst of the worst.

http://cellar.org/2015/Gerrymandering.jpg

Think of the hours of hard work in finely crafting that form, I vote for it being art, it certainly represents something beyond it's base physical appearance, the lust for power beyond reason?

good job they didn't have anything better to do :eyebrow:

My rule: If you cut the pattern out of wood, and then put a rubber band around it, the area in the rubber band (not counting area that is out of the jurisdiction, or substantial bodies of water) cannot be more than 150% of the area of the wood.

I'm sure it could be gamed a bit, but perhaps less.

There are ONE HUNDRED counties in North Carolina.

Wow, those seem like they must be tiny counties.

Once upon a time, most American politicians were moderates - not anti-Amiercan and power hungry extremists.

Prove it.

I keep seeing arguments on gerrymandering saying it does or doesn't make a difference in the outcome. After all, Citizens United only spent 30 million after the last census presented the opportunity, on gerrymandering. So the obvious path for me is to look at the structure and results for my residence, because who's more important than me. Rhetorical, no question mark, shut up. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

Looking at the districts laid out for the PA House and Senate, and how they changed in the last redistricting, they look pretty reasonable. They reflect the expected 60/40 split in the election results.

http://cellar.org/2016/palesislature.jpg

Now looking at the district carved out for the US House of Representatives definitely gives me a WTF feeling. It's pretty obvious somebody did this with intent, and likely to benefit the carver/his friends. The resulting elections give a pretty good indication. Now instead of a 60/40 split shown in the state elections, there's a 72/28 split. That's a significant shift from the state's divide.

http://cellar.org/2016/Dist 7.jpg

So to me the answer is yes, it does make a difference, and when the Republicans were in the position to do so, they orchestrated the redistricting to insure the results would be skewed in their favor.
I mean just look at it, that shit can't be an accident, it was carved with a surgeon's precision. I believe with ulterior motive because... politicians.

http://cellar.org/2016/PA 7th Cong Dist.jpg

What the fuck? Who the fuck? Why the fuck? I think I know the answers and highly doubt it's an isolated case.

The new gerrymandering (or cherry-picking) is the database algorithms they use to scrub voter registrations. Used expertly by the Florida establishment to capture that razor-thin margin Bush needed in 2000. There might be some more recent examples in the news.

Gerrymanering is how scumbag liberals and conservatives get elected at the expense of educated and intelligent moderates. That is its only purpose - to subvert the American political system for the benefit of those who make the worst politicians.

OK, here's an example of gerrymandering which was successful here in Australia, but particularly in my state of Qld.

The party at the time who happened to be conservatives, divided the state up into equal sized portions for the electorates, so basically, every electorate was the same size. Whilst this might seem fair, it actually was heavily tipped in favour of the conservative land owners at the time. Some of the electorates only had 6 people living in them thanks to them basically covering a whole cattle station. So in effect, there were a whole heap of electorates which only needed to benefit one person who would represent their families direct best personal interests in the parliament. Naturally these farmers weren't required to even show up in parliament, they just gave their proxy to the party. They actually didn't even have to be a party representative. They could run as an independent, get voted in by their wife, then just give their preference to the conservatives.

It was a dark period. Only about 40 years ago.

Equal size by land area? That's totally fucked up.

Here, it's supposed to be by population.

The Senate is a bit closer to the "by land area" paradigm.

It brings to mind the "red map" images we've seen (and will probably see again in a few months) showing all of the acres that vote Republican.

The very thread that roped me into the cellar. :-)

I once thought gerrymandering was a Nazi wandering lost on a battlefield. Apparently that war came home and survives. It is still found where extremists exist.

You're right Bruce. Generally speaking it is, and it has now become that after the conservative government was finally ousted. Electorates were redefined and it became a level playing field again. More or less anyway.

The perfect solution for Gerrymandering the politicians will never use.

Things are not always what they seem...

It looks like the shit may hit the fan.
'bout time. :eyebrow:

In a highly offensive response, the Rs have accused one of the Supreme Court justices of being biased...

...claiming he should have recused himself, in the court case where it was decided that gerrymandering is out of control...

...because in 2015, when he was a Supreme Court candidate, he made public statements saying that the gerrymandering was out of control.

~ un be lievable ~

(paywalled philly.com article)

(non-paywalled buzzfeed article)

I disagree, in light of the state GOPs actions in recent years it's not only believable, but expected. :mad:

It took a Supreme Court to get politicians to redistrict in a responsible manner. This new GOP map redistricts mostly by county lines. Those evil judges did it again.

It looks fair except for Philly and region.

For the 1st District, it looks like they've made a crazy zig zag near the "wa" in "Delaware" -- do we know anyone who lives around there --

best guesses?

16 = Lancaster turned blue by including Reading
11 = red, even though it includes Harrisburg
6 = red
8 = don't know - fight between the ABE blues and the central Bucks reds
7 = a crazy mash
13 = blue, but will drink hoity-toity beer from time to time
1 = permanent blue
2 = permanent blue

...so in the previous map the Ds won 5 districts, now they will win... 6 I suppose, since Pittsburgh 14 is blue, and they split the burbs.

So the battlegrounds for the state will always be the Philly burbs.

it gives me a tear... almost makes me want to... vote



nah

"Computer, move right. move in. enhance. move right. move in. move in. enhance. enhance. crop and save."

http://cellar.org/2017/phila-gerrymander-map.png

wtf is this bullshite

a bit between the 1st and 7th looks like the outline of Chester Creek so... xoB did they really just cut you right into the 1st District :lol:

My district is much more sensible and I may be rid of the drug dealing Tom Marino.

They did get cute with Luzurne and Carbon counties so somebody might be getting screwed.

Erie and Armstrong counties also have little in common - need not be in the same Congressional district.

Having in common shouldn't be a consideration.

So touching...

Governor rejected the plan. Looks like courts will change those voting borders because state house and senate have too many wacko extremists. Only moderates can get something useful done.

Gerrymandering means moderates cannot get elected to a Congress. So courts must fix it. Expect wacko extremists talk show hosts to bad mouth the courts - since wacko extremists voters worship talk show hosts and hate moderates.

My district is worse, is Philly better?

too many counties broken up and we keep that fuckface Marino... maybe more competitive though which would be the end of the troll

Philadelphia detail:

http://cellar.org/2017/wolfphillymap.jpg

I realize now how hard it is for us nincompoops to figure out whether the map is fair. The GOP one looked more fair at first, but failed a lot of deeper analysis.

It's weird how this one does divvy up Delaware County's reds and blues.

Gov. Wolf brought in a Tufts U. Expert to say that it was fair. Apparently the map "showed no partisan skew when compared to more than a billion randomly generated maps."

(That actually sets off a skepticism alarm bell in my head, because I don't know whether "average" compared to "random" is what is needed. Certainly a *directed* computer-generated map could easily divvy up the state 50-50. Certainly a *random* computer-generated map will draw up a lot of 50-50s. How far off 50-50 does the map need to be, to be considered non-partisan? 52-48 may be statistically average, but it wins elections.)

The bad news: after the next census, a new map will almost certainly be required...

There have long been well proven mathematical statistics for defining what is fair verses what is partisan. Existing districting was measured by these numbers as massively partisan. All conversations about what is fair and what is not, without numbers, can only be subjective. Subjective means useless. A numerical specification must exist - and it has for a long time. But too many want to discuss this stuff using a subjective (also called emotional) perspective. Then the problem is never defined and nothing is solved.

What struck me was that the Tufts U Mathematician had advocated ways of preventing gerrymandering using math ... but this particular Monte Carlo method wasn't one of the ways she advocated (AFAIK, after a quick review).

As near as I can tell I'd be in 6 instead of 1 on the Wolf map.

Does not matter. I believe the courts will now define districts because to many politicians are wacko extremists - not moderates. Only moderates can hammer out solutions.

Supremes released a new map.

Phila closeup (it's an image, don't use the + and - controls)

http://cellar.org/2017/court-map-phila.png

My district includes State College now...

So now the Times is saying that the math is in, and by this method of determining whether a map is fair, the new map isn't:

http://cellar.org/2017/newmapsimulations.png

But maybe it's tricky and we don't understand it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/u...ania-maps.html

This NYT article breaks it down district by district.

Is the goal the center of the randomized grouping, or is the goal zero? R+1.5 is still favoring Republicans, and that 1.5 bonus can translate to an even bigger benefit in actual representation:
Over 50% Democratic voters becomes less than 50% Democratic representatives - with the NEW map.

As I see it, the grouping is the leeway that Republicans would have had when making the map themselves, while still having cover claiming that their advantage was structurally inherent in the urban/rural divide.

But if deliberately designing a map with the intent to minimize partisan advantage, the goal is zero.

If they hadn't pushed for an even more obscene advantage, they could have easily gotten away with R+6 to even R+10. But they forced the court to make the map, instead, and will have to settle for R+1.5.

That's the 64 dollar question.

That claim wouldn't hold up, this is the PA 7th district (where I live), the Republicans created.

Yes, but if they hadn't been so greedy, and put their map as a whole in the +6 to +10 range, they could have pointed to the simulation evidence and said that they were covered on that metric, and the court might not have gone through, district by district, looking for issues.

(note, this is in the context of when the court asked them to resubmit, after the simulation evidence had been introduced, i I have my timeline right).

This was back in 2010 and probably the worst district in the country. But you're right, if they had been more subtle they wouldn't have become the laughing stock of the country / admired for their chutzpah(depending on which side you're on), and drawn the ire of the courts.

Looks like the new map is in place for this election.

Philly.com (paywalled): Pa. gerrymandering's surprise co-conspirators: Democrats

This map we've been choking on? In 2011, one in three Democrats voted in favor of it. Without their votes, it couldn't have been the final map. Why'd they do it... philly.com says, local interests prevailed. The state Ds were disorganized, so local Ds were happy to go along with the plan if it protected their own district.

big if true
 

If democrats don't always agree on everything, then how can we trust anything they say?

It turns out my new district is a few more points pro-Trump than my old district. That means we saddle the rest of you with Opioid Tom Marino, my apologies.