The Center for American Progress reports
A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court [...] have refused to police partisan gerrymandering, largely because they believe that doing so would be too difficult. As Justice Scalia wrote in his plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer , "no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims have emerged."
Scalia's view, however, is questionable. Mathematical models do exist that can measure when a state's electoral map produces results that are wildly out of line with voter preferences. And, in some recent gerrymandering cases, states have even openly stated that they tried to enhance some voters' power at the expense of others. Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect Greg Abbott (R) admitted in a 2013 court filing (PDF) that "In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats." At the very least, a court should be able to discern that a partisan gerrymander occurred when the state freely admits as much.
A potentially significant writing contest sponsored by the Washington, DC advocacy group Common Cause seeks to further repudiate the claim that there is no meaningful way for judges to determine when a legislative map was drawn to give one party an advantage over the others. The contest offers a $5,000 top prize to lawyers and scholars who submit papers "creating a new definition for partisan gerrymandering or further developing an existing definition." (PDF) So the contest seeks to show that, if enticed by a cash prize, a community of scholars can discover something that the justices themselves cannot find—or at least that they claim not to have found—a way to prevent lawmakers from choosing their own voters.
The deadline for submissions is Friday, February 27, 2015.
The winners will be announced in May 2015.
Related Stories
The problems of gerrymandering are manifold, often debated and lamented. Now, a group of computational geometers from Tufts, MIT and others are working the problem from different fronts. From https://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/
The Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group (MGGG) is a small Boston-based team of mathematicians launched by Moon Duchin of Tufts University. Our mission is to study applications of geometry and computing to U.S. redistricting. We believe that gerrymandering of all kinds is a fundamental threat to our democracy.
Our goals are:
- to pursue cutting-edge research in the practically relevant applications of geometry, topology, and computing to the redistricting problem;
- to foster collaboration with researchers in statistics, supercomputing, law, political science, and other fields;
- to facilitate direct civic engagement by training scholars from a variety of quantitative backgrounds to serve as expert witnesses and consultants in redistricting cases;
- to educate the public, both through direct outreach and by helping college and high school teachers incorporate units on voting, gerrymandering, and civil rights into the mathematics curriculum;
- to build a diverse community of mathematically inclined people around the country and give them the knowledge and the tools to hold map-drawers accountable when 2020 comes around.
And from https://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/get-involved/
We are assembling a team of mathematicians, lawyers, statisticians, and active citizens of all stripes to work on practical metrics and solutions for gerrymandering in advance of the 2020 U.S. Census. If you're interested in joining our community, please fill out our Skills and Interest Inventory form.
For anyone that wants to get up to speed on this complex and important topic, https://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/resources/ is a page of links to a variety of related papers and articles.
SN discussed the math of the gerrymander back in 2014,
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/12/27/1148245
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Saturday December 27 2014, @11:03PM
Change the government civic back to despotism.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday December 27 2014, @11:07PM
Too inefficient. How about Monarchy?
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Sunday December 28 2014, @12:25AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday December 27 2014, @11:05PM
Ah, todays SlashKos post, hot from George Soros. And lookie, I get to play early.
Consider that the courts may be reluctant to ban gerrymandering because THEY themselves order it to be done. I live in Louisiana and lemme tell ya, we could now gerrymander things such that we wouldn't send a single D to Congress; except that the Supreme Court orders the state to gerrymander at least one D district.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 28 2014, @12:16AM
To that you have to add the effect of Democrats clustering in the cities [bloombergview.com].
For the most part, deliberately drawn district lines aren't the reason Democrats have received fewer seats in recent elections than the raw number of votes might indicate. Gerrymandering, by conventional measures, has cost Democrats only a handful of seats, not close to enough for them to have taken a House majority in 2012, when Democratic candidates received more total votes than Republicans. Instead, what’s hurting Democrats is “clumping” -- Democrats are increasingly rolling up huge margins in small geographic areas.
Democrats are concentrated in cities, rely disproportionately on all manor of government services, and handouts, and are naturally attracted to any party that promises them more more of these things.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 28 2014, @12:52AM
Never underestimate their ability to gerrymander. They can carve a major metro up into a LOT of thin wedges radiating out. They are experts at it, while the practice is old they practically reinvented it in the 20th Century with modern assistance. The Proggies are just mad that they got wiped out in 2010 (a census year) in State level legislative races, which meant that their enemy got a turn at it on a large scale. Of course they don't like it one bit when it is done back at em. And no, there isn't a simple tech/math solution to this problem. Even if it IS a problem, which is at least debatable.
It is like the fillibuster, when they were using it against Bushitler it was the most wonderful bastion of liberty and showed the genius of the American system of government. The winds of political fortune blow the other way and the same pompmous buttholes are voting to eliminate it the second they took the majority with a Prog POTUS having his appointees snarled up in fillibusters. Needless to say they, again in the minority, will now be raging on shouting head theater (cable news), insisting that the old rules now be restored, just in case Hillary! isn't the sure thing they now think.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:52AM
Never underestimate their ability to gerrymander. They can carve a major metro up into a LOT of thin wedges radiating out.
Its never been done to a major city. Its been suggested and met with heavy democratic howls of protest. (All those wealthy outer suburb people mixed in with their victom-hood addicted inner-city dependents? The horrors!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:09AM
Even where they're the dominant demographic, Blues can't seem to get their shit together.
Apathy keeps them from getting out the vote.
With the low percentages (of all stripes) that actually show up at the polls, in a lot of places, if they got 100 percent of their compatriots to suit up, show up, and cast votes for Blue candidates and Blue causes, they could conceivably overwhelm the almost-equally-complacent Reds.
With the Blues, I'm constantly reminded of the Will Rogers quote "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
...and a lot of this apathy is due to Blue candidates being indistinguishable from Red candidates.
Many "Blue" candidates seem to think that the electorate wants the country to shift Rightward.
If you look at the positions of most folks (citizens, not politicians), you see that's not so; the country is demographically center-left.
-- gewg_ (who tends to vote Green)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:27AM
Democrats of today make Nixon look like a pinko leftie.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:57AM
True enough.
And most conservative leaning people are also center-left on social issues like race and gender, while remaining fiscally conservative and states-rightist.
By and large I suspect the split right down the middle of the country is due to most people thinking stuff in general is progressing approximately correctly with various disagreements on specific issues. The pendulum swings.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:38AM
fiscally conservative [...] most people thinking stuff in general is progressing approximately correctly
It will be interesting to see how long those memes hold out after another 10 million jobs have been exported.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:40PM
And most conservative leaning people are also center-left on social issues like race and gender
Not in the southern states. Here the conservative authoritarians tend to be well to the right of Genghis Khan.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:38AM
rely disproportionately on ... manor ... handouts,
Either you have confused your eras, or there is a typo (more likely a simple spelling mistake?) in your comment. And being attracted to parties that promise more, isn't that, like, Republicans and defense contractors?
(Score: 1) by goody on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:19AM
Both parties campaign on handouts, the Democrats give them to their poorest constituents, the Republicans give them to their richest.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:44AM
Your conclusions rest on a demonstrably false belief, namely that residents of cities are living comfortably on the public dole, and taking the money to do that from the hardworking people of rural areas.
According to the US Census Bureau [census.gov], it turns out that the areas of the country with the most welfare recipients are not where you think they are: the state that is really making the most use of welfare programs, and has been since at least 2000 or so, is Alaska. On a percentage basis, a resident of Alaska or Maine is more likely to be receiving government handouts than a resident of any major metropolitan area. Residents of Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Washington DC, and several other major cities are less likely to be on the public dole than an average American.
Another very relevant fact is that the government on average spends more on providing services to rural residents than urban residents, because it's harder to get things like the mail and cops and fire trucks to places out in the boonies than it is to get them to the middle of Manhattan. If you compare tax money in to tax money out, you find that the kinds of places that are real money sinks tend to be rural Mississippi, not Harlem.
The prevailing theory of why city-dwellers tend to prefer Democrats to Republicans: Cities have a much higher percentage of non-white residents than rural areas, and the Democratic Party has repeatedly attempted to represent the interests of non-white residents over the last 50+ years, including pushing through numerous anti-discrimination laws related to housing, education, voting, and employment, and regularly running non-white candidates for public office. The Republican Party, by contrast, has repeatedly demonized non-white citizens, calling them "welfare queens", "anchor babies", and worse, has run more than a few candidates with KKK ties for public office, has very recently taken a very public stance in support of police who kill completely innocent non-white citizens, and has done their best to blame all of the country's problems on those same non-white citizens. If you weren't white, who would you pick?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:22AM
AC Here. I still haven't made the switch away from the other place, although I've been lurking here for a while.
A few concerns I have with what you've written:
1) you're being a bit misleading about what measurement you're citing and what conclusion you want people to draw from it. If you were to pick just a handful of large cities - Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, etc... there are more people in these towns receiving government assistance then there are human beings in the entire state of Alaska.
You're saying that a person selected at random from Alaska is more likely to be receiving some kind of assistance than a person selected at random from a large urban area. That may be true. However, that says nothing about the total number of people nor the total amount of money.
The claim you are rebutting says simply that democrats cluster in cities (which is true), rely on government handouts (which we haven't settled), and are attracted to any party that promises them services/handouts (which we also haven't settled).
The last claim is interesting: it posits that current democrat voters would vote for some other party that offered a more attractive handout package. I think that's specifically false - I don't think most Americans that have bothered to identify with a political party typically cross party lines in elections. IOW, it wouldn't matter what a republican offered, most urban democrats wouldn't be persuaded.
The way that last claim is meant is that democrats are motived (presumably, more than republicans) by receiving government services.
This is probably true. It's probably true in 3 unrelated senses.
1) the democratic recipients of these services presumably like them and will continue voting for them
2) the democratic middle and upper class support these services, even if they don't receive them, and will continue voting for them
3) the republicans who qualify for and receive these services by and large do not vote for the democratic politicians that promise these types of services. This is a common complaint of democrats -- that republicans "vote against their own self interest"
IOW, there are many republicans who aren't motivated to vote along handout-promise lines, even if they actually receive those handouts, while there are many democrats who are.
2) The data about public money in and out of the various states is tricky. I live in North Dakota. My state is often held up as an example of rural states sucking up federal money. Where does that federal money go?
It does not primarily go to unemployment benefits, for instance - my state has the lowest unemployment in the nation (and is in the bottom 5 in the nation as far as population goes)
Two very large recipients of federal dollars in ND are the US military and the Agriculture sector. ND is the national leader in wheat and honey production, as well as a few other crops that escape my mind at the moment. For better or worse, federal dollars that go to support farms, agriculture, crop insurance, etc, are going to find their way into my state.
Regarding the US military spending: 1/3rd of the US ICBM fleet is stationed in ND. A huge chunk of worldwide drone missions are flown out of Grand Forks AFB. The USAF presence here is substantial, and 100% of it is federal money from outside.
Regarding federal tax outflows: the wage scale in North Dakota is not what it is in urban areas. There is a robust middle class, but the income distribution falls off rapidly near the top. You can have a great life here for under six figures. If I took a job in the Bay Area I'd need to be making well over 200k to try and approach the standard of living I have here.
Federal Income Taxes are based on AGI and tax tables that are uniform across the nation. My tax rate is not cost-of-living adjusted. That means that, bottom line, our state doesn't pay a lot of income taxes because it doesn't have a lot of income.
The conversation about who pays in and who pays out is an interesting one, but the claim you are repeating isn't necessarily a useful way of looking at it.
3) Your explanation doesn't address why white city dwellers would prefer democrats.
It turns out that population density and voting behavior are linked, and that the relationship holds more strongly than the racial/cultural makeup of the city in question.
High population density predicts democratic voting, whereas rural blacks frequently vote republican - just like rural whites and rural hispanics.
It is absolutely true that the large concentrations of people who are in multi-generational poverty and persistent wards of the state are in urban areas. But that's true because outside of urban areas, there simply aren't large concentrations of people.
Finally, on the topic of rural services
What services do you think are federally subsidized where I live? Where I live, I do some of my own road maintenance. I pay an annual subscription fee for a private ambulance service. The fire departments are all volunteer based. The electricity is provided by a local co-op, and so is the water.
My electricity is actually more expensive than it needs to be because federal law has made coal fired power more expensive. I have some of the cleanest air in the country and last month (oct->nov) my electrical bill was over $400 to heat my modest home to 65F, and my modest outdoor workshop to 45F. There is a reason that my congressman fights the EPA on coal regulations -- I want him to. I already told you that I get my power from a rural co-op, so I am certainly no shill for big business. I am a shill for cheap electricity, and some urban jackass who knows fuck-all about what its like to live in a place where it is regularly -30F can just fuck right off when it comes to telling me to pay more for my heating costs.
The bottom line is this:
Here where I live, we make most of your food, we hold many of your nukes, we develop a lot of your energy, our kids fight all the wars and non-wars, and we're pretty damn tired of you telling us what to do when you're not busy insulting us.
Think you're not getting a "good deal" from rural America? A lot of us aren't happy with the deal either. Problem is, last time rural America tried leaving, Urban America played the abusive spouse card and told us we couldn't, and settling _that_ domestic dispute killed about a half million people.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:41PM
My electricity is actually more expensive than it needs to be because federal law has made coal fired power more expensive. I have some of the cleanest air in the country and last month (oct->nov) my electrical bill was over $400 to heat my modest home to 65F, and my modest outdoor workshop to 45F. There is a reason that my congressman fights the EPA on coal regulations -- I want him to. I already told you that I get my power from a rural co-op, so I am certainly no shill for big business. I am a shill for cheap electricity, and some urban jackass who knows fuck-all about what its like to live in a place where it is regularly -30F can just fuck right off when it comes to telling me to pay more for my heating costs.
Just because your coal power pollution blows away to other states doesn't mean it disappears. Why should others have to choke on it, paying the price, just because you want to live comfortably in a place that isn't suitable for winter living? Environmental regulations are a method of forcing the cost to be born when and by whom the regulated item is used, instead of dumping the cost onto others or leaving future generations to deal with the clean up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:58PM
You actually have no evidence that pollution from my state is even detectable in other states. However, given that all of the surrounding states have very clean air also, that pollution must be going awfully far before showing up as a problem on somebody else's doorstep.
Oddly enough, if you look at an air quality map of the US, it would seem that low air quality is concentrated in large urban areas.
It seems... unlikely that rural air quality problems magically congregate in cities.
It seems much more likely that urban areas are pollution disasters. If you want to regulate somebody, regulate yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @12:43AM
Ignoring the gloating snark, there is a kernel of truth there. Gerrymandering was seen as a way to empower minorities, originally it gave them a voice when they would otherwise have been drowned out. But, as is ever the case, power perverted the original intent for its own means and now gerrymandering is about protecting the powerful regardless of political party rather than enabling the disempowered.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:12AM
Gerrymandering was seen as a way to empower minorities, originally it gave them a voice when they would otherwise have been drowned out.
Err...not so much, friend. [wikipedia.org]
I know. All that historical fact stuff is so annoying when it doesn't jive with your delusions. So sad.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:13AM
Don't be so snotty, there is more to the world than a wikipedia entry.
That kind of gerrymandering was about political parties. I'm talking about minority opportunity districts under the voting rights act of 1965 where certain districts must be drawn to enable the election of racial minority candidates - not too heavily "stacked" to keep the minorities out of all the other districts but also not too broadly "cracked" to dilute minority votes so that they will have effectively no say in any district. Those districts are explicitly drawn to empower minorities and they can look even worse than the original salamander. [wikipedia.org]
Modern gerrymandering (other than VRA mandates) isn't so much about political parties or racial groups, it is about preserving incumbency regardless of party or ethnic group. Sure it often ends up stacking racial groups, but that's just a side-effect that the gerrymanderers don't mind, maybe even a bonus if you are feeling less than charitable.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:42AM
The problem is that you are claiming that gerrymandering was invented to boost minority voting power and then it got corrupted. That is simply false. Gerrymandering long pre-dated the voting rights act and it's purpose was to consolidate power. As you can see here [wikipedia.org], the original Gerrymander was 200 years ago in Mass. and it had nothing whatsoever to do with concern for racial minorities.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:04AM
You twisted the facts to fit your world view and then got annoyed when someone points out the truth? And I'm being snotty? Okay.
Sounds like a pretty big problem. Just to clarify, you originally said:
Gerrymandering was seen as a way to empower minorities, originally it gave them a voice when they would otherwise have been drowned out.
Which was given the lie by your own statement that:
That kind of gerrymandering was about political parties. I'm talking about minority opportunity districts under the voting rights act of 1965
So, you initially ignore the almost 200 years worth of gerrymandering in the US, and then claim that it wasn't what you were talking about.
So, you knew what you were talking about, but were unable to communicate it clearly to the rest of us. Perhaps you should work on your communication skills. I recommend picking up a copy of this [amazon.com]. It seems that it might do you some good, friend.
Gerrymandering has been done for two centuries and always (as was pointed out by sjames) was always (including the instances you mention) for the same reason: to consolidate power. The motives behind that consolidation may change, but the desired result of the gerrymandering was always the same.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:07AM
> You twisted the facts to fit your world view and then got annoyed when someone points out the truth? And I'm being snotty?
Actually, what's going on here is that you have chosen to read my words in the least charitable fashion possible. That's the geek way of getting hung up black and white literalism rather than looking for truth. At best its a pyrrhic victor for you.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:30PM
Actually, what's going on here is that you have chosen to read my words in the least charitable fashion possible. That's the geek way of getting hung up black and white literalism rather than looking for truth. At best its a pyrrhic victor for you.
Not really. I just took the most common meanings from the words used and attempted to comprehend what you said. Sadly, I'm not telepathic so I only know what you actually say, not what you intended to say.
As for victory, I didn't realize we were in competition. I guess you're in competition with someone, but not with me. I have no interest in that. My interest (at least here on SN) is having interesting discussions about topics which pique my interest. From that perspective, this thread is not a victory. For anyone. You were incorrect. I was pedantic. You were butthurt. I was mildly amused.
And nothing of value was gained. A shame.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @11:06PM
both the house and senate have rules. they simply choose not to follow them. why do they get away with this? because nobody is policing these rules. breaches are highlighted by opposing parties (rand paul in the senate comes to mind as a regular) but if no administrative authority enforces the rules of the chambers, then of course nobody is going to bother following them. if more rules are created, they will be simply ignored as well.
most countries have some kind of speaker or representative assigned to keeping order and enforcing rules. if the representatives in congress responsible for doing this are incompetent, then they need to be fired.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:12AM
Can you be even slightly specific as to which rules you mean?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:29AM
Gerrymandering has been going on for a long time. In fact it is named after a former democrat from the state of North Carolina.
Until about 2000 the democrats controlled NC with an iron fist. Thru gerrymandering. That was until a judge handed it back to both sides and basically said 'fix this or I do it'. Magically they came to an agreement which is pretty close to 50/50 with enough for a 1-2% swing vote.
The only reason Democrats are mad about it is not because it is the right thing to do. It is because they are being beat at their own game that they basically invented.
The above is one of the reasons I am considering moving away from this state. The only thing that changed on the nameplates was it went from D to R. Same shit.
What they did in CA is interesting but I think just basically will disenfranchise whole cities and counties instead of a few districts.
And as a side note gewg_ why do you not just bother to log in. You tag it. You submit tons of stuff. Then post things as AC and sign it? Whats with that? Is your karma that important?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:13AM
Gerrymandering has been going on for a long time. In fact it is named after a former democrat from the state of Massachusetts.
There. FTFY [wikipedia.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:47AM
The GGP post said enforcing rules.
The only "rule" that I see in play is THE MAJORITY RULES.
The lesson here is **Learn how not to lose your majority status**.
Democrats acting like Republicans is NOT a winning strategy.
As you note, these monkeyshines have been going on a long time.
Is it cynical? Yup. Undemocratic? (small d). Looks that way.
Up to the point that a member of the federal judiciary reins in a particular action, it's a case of **All's fair in love and politics** i.e. everything is open to broad interpretations.
The only commenter I've seen that really put his finger on the mess is the AC who posted @10:49PM.
Until there is a constitutional amendment which specifies -exactly- what is out of bounds, I don't see anything changing permanently.
.
My karma always remains at zero. Doesn't bother me.
I don't want to moderate, so there's no loss to me there either.
I never cared what the site was named, so getting to vote on that wasn't important.
I don't bother with cookies, so a signup would just be an exertion, followed by more daily exertions.
That would not be appreciably different from the brand of inconvenience I already have and would gain me nothing I desire.
...besides, I kinda like being the local weirdo.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 27 2014, @11:20PM
Like it just the way it is.
I'm sure there are many mechanisms which could create fairer congressional districts. However, those who benefit the most from the current system are the ones who decide what that system should look like.
Good luck with that!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by RedGreen on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:45AM
And in case none of you have noticed they got to appoint the Judges who get to decide any challenges. Americans like to talk a good game on this whole freedom and democracy thing but their history has shown it is anything but one. It has been structured since the beginning to be one that acts in the interests of the rich and powerful with some scraps thrown to the common people, who have proven just how stupid they are by voting against their own interests time after time. By believing whatever the lie of the day is that is manufactured to keep them in line with the help of the legal system if that lying fails to do so. Shakespeare was right kill all the lawyers, nice side effect you get plenty of politicians with that move as well...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 29 2014, @08:03AM
I think people forget or willfully ignore the fact that judges are just as partisan as the rest of the system.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:49AM
for redistricting comprised of residents, not judges or computer programs. The "Bill James" solution won't get it right.
Which residents? Each state should pass a law indicating how the review panel is chosen, and it probably should consist of city and town council members and selectmen from across the state.
(Score: 2) by EQ on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:25AM
Go back to the original size congressional districts. And dramatically increase the number of Representatives in the process. It should be as easy to see your congressional rep as it is to see a small town mayor or county commissioner. Supply and demand - greatly increase the supply = lower the value of each individual seat to where gerrymandering isnt worth the effort it takes. Plus smaller populations represented means smaller and easier districts to draw congiuously to allow for local representation. Problem solved.
-gewg, its not about representing all the pople in the state, its about representing local groups of people. Your solution doesnt solve that problem, it actually compounds it by taking it out of the hands of the representative elected government and giving it to bureaucrats. This may have been proper in communist technocrat East Germany, but not so well here in the US.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by EQ on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:30AM
Please, editors, stop spewing _gewg progressive-slanted junk articles uncritically. If I wanted that regurgitated progressive SlashKos trash I'd have stayed at the other site.
And post them AC - since that is how he posts all his replies to avoid the downmod from people who would otherwise mark him FOE so as to not see his garbage.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:20AM
Please, editors, stop spewing _gewg progressive-slanted junk articles uncritically. If I wanted that regurgitated progressive SlashKos trash I'd have stayed at the other site.
I don't mind having both center-right (Gewg's style) and far right articles here. I'd actually like to see a wider spectrum of political thought.
This isn't your personal echo chamber. In fact, I'd think you'd welcome opportunities to engage in the Marketplace of Ideas [wikipedia.org] to express your point of view and show that gewg just how wrong he is.
Assuming that you have the arguments, facts and rhetorical skills to do so.
Personally, I like opportunities to engage with people with whom I disagree. It gives me a chance to hone my arguments and maybe, just maybe, learn something new. You might try it sometime.
Toodles!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:33AM
They've gotten their way so long that they think all they have to do is -ask- and any ideas that aren't Reactionary will automagically be censored.
...rather than, as you note, them actually having to form a cogent counterargument.
...and if you think *I'm* center-right, then **your** politics must put you very high on somebody's Pinko list. 8-)
Do you hear a lot of funny noises every time you make a phone call?
Black vans parked near your home?
Be careful. There's way too few Lefties remaining. Wouldn't want to lose any.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday December 28 2014, @11:01AM
Look at the electoral maps for Austin [austinchronicle.com], a city I once lived in. It is an open secret in Austin that gerrymandering takes place (and is regularly updated) to protect the incumbents. When gerrymandering gets this bad, it's easy to identify.
Want to reign in gerrymandering? Just add two simple, objective requirements: (a) a district must be contiguous and (b) the ratio of the circumference to the area may not exceed some upper limit.
In the first map, districts like 46, 48, and 50 shouldn't be possible, whereas 47, 51 and 136 look pretty reasonable. In the later "interim map C235": it's nuts, but would quickly be killed by a limit on the circumference/area of the districts.
This won't solve all problems, but it will at least eliminate the extreme cases. Best of all, the evaluation is entirely objective, and hence simple to enforce.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fritsd on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:04PM
As somebody from a country with proportional representation (one voter one vote), this article is fascinating, in the same sense as when you come across an article discussing the medieval problem of determining how many angels could dance on a pin (can angels dance? what size is the pin? are angels actually corporeal beings, or can they manifest as such? why were people in the Middle Ages so fascinated with angelic ballet or needlework?).
Or for another example, the armillary sphere.
Gerrymandering is a complex solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. If everybody's vote is equally counted, then it doesn't matter where they live. Ergo, *if* it matters to the political parties in which district the voters live, then their votes are *not* equally counted (and you put up with this?).
Just change your perspective to: "every voter should have 1 vote for the political party that they choose to represent them. After the election, the party that won the most votes gets the first opportunity to form a majority coalition to govern. If that process fails, let the next largest party try to form a (possibly minority) government." and the whole problem goes poof.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @09:59PM
The problem with that is inertia.
Just look how difficult it is getting -tiny- things changed.
Proposing a system reboot would make heads explode.
...and, while we're fantasizing...
Alternatively, or even in addition to pure proportional representation, ranked voting has always struck me as a very democratic (small d) idea.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:54AM
Just change your perspective to: "every voter should have 1 vote for the political party that they choose to represent them. After the election, the party that won the most votes gets the first opportunity to form a majority coalition to govern. If that process fails, let the next largest party try to form a (possibly minority) government." and the whole problem goes poof.
You're describing a parliamentary system [wikipedia.org]. The United States has a presidential system [wikipedia.org].
While there are some advantages WRT representation (as you cogently describe) to a parliamentary system, migrating to such a system would require a complete overhaul of governmental structures on multiple scales (national, state and municipal). As an example, the US constitution [archives.gov] makes that quite clear in articles I, II and III.
This is also true of the several states.
Given the history and the populace involved, it's really unlikely that could happen without a complete collapse of the US at all levels and a reconstitution of the country with a completely new system of government. But thanks for suggesting it!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by quixote on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:22PM
Of course there's a mathematical, or at least scientific, answer to gerrymandering. Use GIS to determine the most geometrically compact regions consistent with geography and transportation routes and that have approximately equal numbers of people. End of story, no?
Except for the howling of the incumbents who control the process, of course.