Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
spool32 on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Yes, but the problem is that there is no directive for the courts to follow. For racial gerrymandering the directive is never to do it. If any indication is found that maps were drawn to disenfranchise minorities then the map is illegal. While difficult to prove (especially given the courts tendency to ignore the obvious), it is relatively straight forward in terms of what should be allowed.
Partisan gerrymandering is different, in that there is no directive from the constitution or from congress on how much is too much. You and I could certainly come up with a test, but who’s to say our test is fairer than the test someone else could come up with? Just because a line should exist somewhere doesn’t mean it should be on the courts to decide where.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Yes, but the problem is that there is no directive for the courts to follow. For racial gerrymandering the directive is never to do it. If any indication is found that maps were drawn to disenfranchise minorities then the map is illegal. While difficult to prove (especially given the courts tendency to ignore the obvious), it is relatively straight forward in terms of what should be allowed.
Partisan gerrymandering is different, in that there is no directive from the constitution or from congress on how much is too much. You and I could certainly come up with a test, but who’s to say our test is fairer than the test someone else could come up with? Just because a line should exist somewhere doesn’t mean it should be on the courts to decide where.
The problem is as it stands, the courts are the only ones with the actual power to establish that line, who aren't (until now) the ones actively disenfranchising voters in favor of a single party Republican state.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Man what. I'm pretending they're unsolvable? Come on now.
Racial gerrymandering is a lot easier to fix because being a minority is effectively immutable. How is the SCOTUS supposed to fix political gerrymandering nationally?
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Man what. I'm pretending they're unsolvable? Come on now.
Racial gerrymandering is a lot easier to fix because being a minority is effectively immutable. How is the SCOTUS supposed to fix political gerrymandering nationally?
I dunno maybe follow any number of the solutions the lower courts were using before SCOTUS decided to be dipshits?
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Man what. I'm pretending they're unsolvable? Come on now.
Racial gerrymandering is a lot easier to fix because being a minority is effectively immutable. How is the SCOTUS supposed to fix political gerrymandering nationally?
I dunno maybe follow any number of the solutions the lower courts were using before SCOTUS decided to be dipshits?
ahem. before half the SCOTUS decided. we all know which half.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
This feels like you've started from a conclusion and are arguing backward from it not the other way around.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
When 30% of a state elects a party to 70% of the legislature, it is neither impossible to see how that happened nor impossible to combat it. There is no reason to do nothing.
And they didn't do nothing, they did far worse than nothing! Their ruling is a positive push for states to gerrymander in such a way that the majority party robs citizens of their votes.
Your argument against this is that voters take on the the simple task of making sure that they turn out 80% of all voters for their preferred party, so they can gain a 2-seat majority maybe but also haha the election officials are all in the majority party so they're definitely not letting that happen. Simple as that!
To accept both of the premises that you're arguing from, that this is impossible to understand or combat partisan gerrymandering and that this is going to result in voter disenfranchisement, is a pretty good argument to burn down our existing system because it's worthless.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Nobody is saying there isn’t math to tell you exactly how gerrymandered you are. It’s a false argument.
What we are saying is that unless you’re arguing it has to be 0 gerrymandering, deciding the appropriate amount of gerrymander is not straight forward.
Which isn’t to say it can’t be done! It totally can. But the courts role is to enforce previously decided rules. Not to make up their own. You don’t fix a failure in legislators by breaking down the system of checks and balances and having the judicial decide to start legislating.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
One person one vote has been a standard principle at the federal level for decades and more than sufficies as justification.
Your second point is a non sequitor. Fair districts under a statistical test are those that produce results that align with the population. If the opinion of the population changes the results will match it if the districts are fair (there is an implicit assumption that you do not see drastic changes in what part of the population votes each election, but these are borne out by historical data - you don't get 10% from a demographic one time and 90% the next)
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
Nobody is saying there isn’t math to tell you exactly how gerrymandered you are. It’s a false argument.
What we are saying is that unless you’re arguing it has to be 0 gerrymandering, deciding the appropriate amount of gerrymander is not straight forward.
Which isn’t to say it can’t be done! It totally can. But the courts role is to enforce previously decided rules. Not to make up their own. You don’t fix a failure in legislators by breaking down the system of checks and balances and having the judicial decide to start legislating.
That's what Case Law is, and it is an inherent part of SCOTUS. Has been since Marbury v Madison made up Judicial Review.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
The Constitution.
I don't feel like you're being serious here anymore.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
Districts are set every 10 years
If after 2 years what was pretty fair is now heavily Republican because the electorate or the party or the issues changed, that’s just politics at work
Totally valid shifts in political representation:
-people changed their minds
-demographics shifted as people got older or moved or reached voting age or died
-a party changed its positions or message to try and get more votes
Totally invalid shifts:
-the district lines changed so that a 50/50 vote went from a 60/40 rep to a 70/40 rep
Like, gerrymandering doesn’t change the composition of a state vote. It is not hard to look at the numbers and say, “In 2008 Democrats got 43% of the vote and 5/12 seats, in 2011 Democrats got 44% of the vote and 2/12 seats.”
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
One person one vote has been a standard principle at the federal level for decades and more than sufficies as justification.
Your second point is a non sequitor. Fair districts under a statistical test are those that produce results that align with the population. If the opinion of the population changes the results will match it if the districts are fair (there is an implicit assumption that you do not see drastic changes in what part of the population votes each election, but these are borne out by historical data - you don't get 10% from a demographic one time and 90% the next)
One person one vote is indeed a set standard. But everyone is allowed to vote. What isn’t required is that the votes result in proportional representation. That simply was never the intent of the constitution. Are all the voters in a single district who voted for the loser disenfranchised because they are the minority and their votes never result in their preferred representative?
Indeed, first past the post voting always has some amount of inequality. Even completely random maps could have a fair amount difference from proportional voting. So how then to decide how much is too much? That is the question that the constitution or voting laws can not ocurrently answer.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
The Constitution.
What test? And why is your test more appropriate than my test, which allows marginally more gerrymandering. And how does the requirement for minority-majority districts based on race fit in?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
Such changes are not an issue. A swapped vote changes the overall state count and so also changes the overall gerrymandering target. So the resulting districts should still be fair. If a swing was large enough and consistent enough as an example it could produce a swing over what you would ideally see. However these effects happen regardless of the fairness of the district. So they are not a particularly huge concern.
More or less it should be impossible (well severely difficult) for gerrymandered districts to arise naturally out of fair districts. In order to do so* people have to move within the state and not simply change their vote. In this respect people are functionally land features. They do not move enough nor in enough coordination in order to have an effect.
If for some reason things do change enough to lopside a state (which again is unlikely) it would be corrected in 10 years.
*it would be theoretically possible for it to happen but not functionally. As in you could conceivably provide a set of vote swaps that do it but this happening organically is essentially probability zero.
Also Note that the most likely result in a “naturally gerrymandered” state is for the winning side to get more seats than they should. This is the result of a huge majority erasing competitive/safe districts for the other side. As a result this is slightly less of a concern since it does not swap control of the legislature.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
The Constitution.
I don't feel like you're being serious here anymore.
To jump in:
The reason why people's opinions changing wouldn't fail the test is because it would most likely change how people voted overall and how representation turned out. The test is asking "are these results a significant deviation from the expected representation if we had a popular vote?" If, suddenly, Democrats were convincing to an extra 5% of the population in maps that already passed the test, it is very likely that they would gain ~5% representatives. Small drifts would not cause any issues with redistricting every so often. The only things that would cause the test to fail would be partisan gerrymandering, or large shifts localized within certain districts, which is extremely unlikely in districts that aren't gerrymandered to begin with. You'd need something like e.g. Democratic Districts 3, 4 and 6 all swung hard left and went from 55% to 70% D, while Republican Districts 1, 2, and 5 had no change, which is a really hard scenario to imagine.
The Constitution both requires states to have a Republican form of government, and for people to have equal protection under the laws. It is at least persuasively arguable that partisan gerrymandering serves to negate both of these factors, as it makes the government massively unrepresentative and denies people equal protection under the law. While you might reject this, I find it hard to see how a system that could create a majority of representation out of 25-30% of the vote share meets either of those criteria.
If you make it an equal protection ruling on the basis of 25% of the vote getting a majority, you're going to create some serious problems for the future when that ruling implies that the 14th Amendment and Article 1 Section 3 come into conflict.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And still the thread assumes that this will not cut just as harshly against Republicans in Dem dominated states, as it does in Maryland. Certainly this ruling invites California, Illinois, and NY to virtually eliminate Republican representation.
that doesn't make it ok and doesn't help the people the GOP is going to hurt.
I've not claimed it's OK. This tangent has devolved into how the Blue States can fight back though, and reality is that they will not - they will just also gerrymander.
California and New York have districting commissions for 2020. Illinois doesn't, and while we have plenty of corrupt politicians across parties, the Good Government types are almost all Democrats anymore. Because while yes, this is a GooGoo versus Incumbency Power issue that can cut across Parties in theory, in practice it tends to apply more excessively to one Party that has repeatedly attempted to disenfranchise voters while the other promotes universal solutions that may well hamstring itself in the name of improved democracy.
It's true that one party has on balance been more of a dick about this, but nobody's hands are clean in terms of political gerrymandering. That's part of the reasoning behind not making a ruling!
If you make it an equal protection ruling on the basis of 25% of the vote getting a majority, you're going to create some serious problems for the future when that ruling implies that the 14th Amendment and Article 1 Section 3 come into conflict.
How so? Amendments trump the original text, that's the whole point.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
One person one vote has been a standard principle at the federal level for decades and more than sufficies as justification.
Your second point is a non sequitor. Fair districts under a statistical test are those that produce results that align with the population. If the opinion of the population changes the results will match it if the districts are fair (there is an implicit assumption that you do not see drastic changes in what part of the population votes each election, but these are borne out by historical data - you don't get 10% from a demographic one time and 90% the next)
One person one vote is indeed a set standard. But everyone is allowed to vote. What isn’t required is that the votes result in proportional representation. That simply was never the intent of the constitution.
Are you aware of the history of voting systems prior to Baker and Reynolds? Because that set standard is of a very modern vintage, and goes against your previous point of Courts only enforcing previously decided rulings and not making up their own Law.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
The Constitution.
What test? And why is your test more appropriate than my test, which allows marginally more gerrymandering. And how does the requirement for minority-majority districts based on race fit in?
The tests further up the quote tree that I linked. They're more appropriate because of the objective and nonpartisan statistical standards they entail. And they are fully within the ability to follow the VRA guidelines as evidenced by being able to apply the tests to current VRA compliant maps and have them pass the tests.
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
The Constitution.
I don't feel like you're being serious here anymore.
I feel like you aren't actually engaging in the points I am bringing. I already answered the ???? question and you subsequently agreed with my point. Suddenly that isn't valid, though? And your hypothetical seems to be confused with regards to the tests I linked to and how they function since you are suggesting a broad shift in vote patterns would invalidate a fair map under Mean-Median when a broad shift in voting patterns alters the Mean-Median by definition.
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Yah I'm with you on this Moniker, I think it's gonna have to be done through the People forcing it on their state legislatures though. Maybe you can some situations where the governor is one party and the leg is different, and they can ram it through, but it's going to be challenging. I think we're all on the same page in regard to whether it's bad for the country - I think the reasoning for fixing it in the SCOTUS is paper-thin though. Ebum's idea has the best shot and that's a tough argument to prevail with.
We can't! Because they're gerrymandered to protect the Republican majority!
Yep. Saying the solution to being disarmed and tied up is to use the knife you lost and range of motion that's now restricted to cut yourself free doesn't really help. And I really don't want to support accelerationism to force the Supreme Court's hand by having my State infringe on voter's rights with bullshit maps. Doing this state by state empowers bad actors in the remaining States that don't reform. Literally. With governmental power. That they are wielding without the social contract of deriving it from the consent of the governed.
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
And still the thread assumes that this will not cut just as harshly against Republicans in Dem dominated states, as it does in Maryland. Certainly this ruling invites California, Illinois, and NY to virtually eliminate Republican representation.
that doesn't make it ok and doesn't help the people the GOP is going to hurt.
I've not claimed it's OK. This tangent has devolved into how the Blue States can fight back though, and reality is that they will not - they will just also gerrymander.
California and New York have districting commissions for 2020. Illinois doesn't, and while we have plenty of corrupt politicians across parties, the Good Government types are almost all Democrats anymore. Because while yes, this is a GooGoo versus Incumbency Power issue that can cut across Parties in theory, in practice it tends to apply more excessively to one Party that has repeatedly attempted to disenfranchise voters while the other promotes universal solutions that may well hamstring itself in the name of improved democracy.
It's true that one party has on balance been more of a dick about this, but nobody's hands are clean in terms of political gerrymandering. That's part of the reasoning behind not making a ruling!
This is some real naked both siding.
Considering we're talking about a ruling that literally considered instances from both fucking sides, and that it's astoundingly easy to find instances of both sides doing political gerrymandering...
If you make it an equal protection ruling on the basis of 25% of the vote getting a majority, you're going to create some serious problems for the future when that ruling implies that the 14th Amendment and Article 1 Section 3 come into conflict.
How so? Amendments trump the original text, that's the whole point.
Not really. They're altering the text and making a new document.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That shortest-splitlined Texas map racially gerrymanders the Austin area.
SCOTUS would tell you that is nobody's business.
Realistically that is the downside of mathematically driven formulas. That we lose the tool to enforce majority minority districts. Which is a price I'm willing to pay but I'm a little leery of pushing for because I'm not minority anything.
Using an algorithmic approach like the shortest line is one of the few ways I see of restoring faith in the "fairness" of the foundation of our electoral process for people of all stripes.
Posts
So what's your solution? States must draw districts that assume people vote in ways so that....???
What is the remedy here? What would you have the Court do??
You say that like there isn’t a way to draw districts fairly
The Court still acknowledges it can fix maps that are racially motivated, why is the difference in intent suddenly impossible to grapple with
Part of this case involved a proposed model for determining when partisan gerrymandering had gone too far
There are reasonable answers to the questions you’re pretending are unsolvable
Yes, but the problem is that there is no directive for the courts to follow. For racial gerrymandering the directive is never to do it. If any indication is found that maps were drawn to disenfranchise minorities then the map is illegal. While difficult to prove (especially given the courts tendency to ignore the obvious), it is relatively straight forward in terms of what should be allowed.
Partisan gerrymandering is different, in that there is no directive from the constitution or from congress on how much is too much. You and I could certainly come up with a test, but who’s to say our test is fairer than the test someone else could come up with? Just because a line should exist somewhere doesn’t mean it should be on the courts to decide where.
The problem is as it stands, the courts are the only ones with the actual power to establish that line, who aren't (until now) the ones actively disenfranchising voters in favor of a single party Republican state.
Man what. I'm pretending they're unsolvable? Come on now.
Racial gerrymandering is a lot easier to fix because being a minority is effectively immutable. How is the SCOTUS supposed to fix political gerrymandering nationally?
I dunno maybe follow any number of the solutions the lower courts were using before SCOTUS decided to be dipshits?
Two subsequent elections that fail a Two Sample T-Test, Mean-Median test, and/or Excess Seat test is considered a partisan gerrymander and requires a new Court approved map that doesn't. Numerous Amicus briefs from Poli-Sci academics who know how this works were submitted to suggest strong objective non-partisan solutions.
http://gerrymander.princeton.edu/info/
ahem. before half the SCOTUS decided. we all know which half.
Right, so assume that partisanship is a feature, then test for whether there's the correct amount of it. That's... a mess as an idea. Moreover, and more to the point here, what do you expect the SCOTUS to do? The base suggestion that they even can do anything is questionable!
This entire concept seems founded on the idea that voting patterns don't change.
This feels like you've started from a conclusion and are arguing backward from it not the other way around.
No, it isn't. The Mean-Median test is entirely neutral about what results 'ought' to be and is dependent upon what they were and how far they diverge. And partisanship is a feature of first past the post winner take all systems. Duverger's Law.
And they didn't do nothing, they did far worse than nothing! Their ruling is a positive push for states to gerrymander in such a way that the majority party robs citizens of their votes.
Your argument against this is that voters take on the the simple task of making sure that they turn out 80% of all voters for their preferred party, so they can gain a 2-seat majority maybe but also haha the election officials are all in the majority party so they're definitely not letting that happen. Simple as that!
To accept both of the premises that you're arguing from, that this is impossible to understand or combat partisan gerrymandering and that this is going to result in voter disenfranchisement, is a pretty good argument to burn down our existing system because it's worthless.
Yeah spool, you are busily arguing the earth is flat here. This is a solved statistical and governmental problem. There is absolutely zero mystery as to whether a map is partisan or not, and numerous ways to draw fair ones. Gerrymandering has become so effective precisely because it is a solved problem. Turn on the gerrymanderer 5000 and it will make you a map which makes you win up to around 10% voter deficit.
If you say there is no way to test for it and to prevent it you are wrong. Theoretically and experimentally and practically. You are utterly and completely wrong. The supreme court, in pretending they have no way to detect or fix it, may as well have said the world is flat or that it rides on a turtle. It's why they shouldn't be the ones to decide what can and can't be done, only what is legal.
What we are saying is that unless you’re arguing it has to be 0 gerrymandering, deciding the appropriate amount of gerrymander is not straight forward.
Which isn’t to say it can’t be done! It totally can. But the courts role is to enforce previously decided rules. Not to make up their own. You don’t fix a failure in legislators by breaking down the system of checks and balances and having the judicial decide to start legislating.
Maybe I'm just a moron. Explain where I've gone wrong here:
- using a mean-median test, we discover that districts are politically gerrymandered, so the federal court uses ??? justification to order them changed.
- they get changed. Meanwhile, people also change their opinions because they're not land features.
- a vote happens
- welp, they're all wrong again let's start over
also maybe fill in the question marks because that's the main complaint I have
One person one vote has been a standard principle at the federal level for decades and more than sufficies as justification.
Your second point is a non sequitor. Fair districts under a statistical test are those that produce results that align with the population. If the opinion of the population changes the results will match it if the districts are fair (there is an implicit assumption that you do not see drastic changes in what part of the population votes each election, but these are borne out by historical data - you don't get 10% from a demographic one time and 90% the next)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Then that wouldn't fail the test.
The Constitution.
That's what Case Law is, and it is an inherent part of SCOTUS. Has been since Marbury v Madison made up Judicial Review.
I don't feel like you're being serious here anymore.
Districts are set every 10 years
If after 2 years what was pretty fair is now heavily Republican because the electorate or the party or the issues changed, that’s just politics at work
Totally valid shifts in political representation:
-people changed their minds
-demographics shifted as people got older or moved or reached voting age or died
-a party changed its positions or message to try and get more votes
Totally invalid shifts:
-the district lines changed so that a 50/50 vote went from a 60/40 rep to a 70/40 rep
Like, gerrymandering doesn’t change the composition of a state vote. It is not hard to look at the numbers and say, “In 2008 Democrats got 43% of the vote and 5/12 seats, in 2011 Democrats got 44% of the vote and 2/12 seats.”
One person one vote is indeed a set standard. But everyone is allowed to vote. What isn’t required is that the votes result in proportional representation. That simply was never the intent of the constitution. Are all the voters in a single district who voted for the loser disenfranchised because they are the minority and their votes never result in their preferred representative?
Indeed, first past the post voting always has some amount of inequality. Even completely random maps could have a fair amount difference from proportional voting. So how then to decide how much is too much? That is the question that the constitution or voting laws can not ocurrently answer.
What test? And why is your test more appropriate than my test, which allows marginally more gerrymandering. And how does the requirement for minority-majority districts based on race fit in?
Such changes are not an issue. A swapped vote changes the overall state count and so also changes the overall gerrymandering target. So the resulting districts should still be fair. If a swing was large enough and consistent enough as an example it could produce a swing over what you would ideally see. However these effects happen regardless of the fairness of the district. So they are not a particularly huge concern.
More or less it should be impossible (well severely difficult) for gerrymandered districts to arise naturally out of fair districts. In order to do so* people have to move within the state and not simply change their vote. In this respect people are functionally land features. They do not move enough nor in enough coordination in order to have an effect.
If for some reason things do change enough to lopside a state (which again is unlikely) it would be corrected in 10 years.
*it would be theoretically possible for it to happen but not functionally. As in you could conceivably provide a set of vote swaps that do it but this happening organically is essentially probability zero.
Also Note that the most likely result in a “naturally gerrymandered” state is for the winning side to get more seats than they should. This is the result of a huge majority erasing competitive/safe districts for the other side. As a result this is slightly less of a concern since it does not swap control of the legislature.
@spool32
To jump in:
The reason why people's opinions changing wouldn't fail the test is because it would most likely change how people voted overall and how representation turned out. The test is asking "are these results a significant deviation from the expected representation if we had a popular vote?" If, suddenly, Democrats were convincing to an extra 5% of the population in maps that already passed the test, it is very likely that they would gain ~5% representatives. Small drifts would not cause any issues with redistricting every so often. The only things that would cause the test to fail would be partisan gerrymandering, or large shifts localized within certain districts, which is extremely unlikely in districts that aren't gerrymandered to begin with. You'd need something like e.g. Democratic Districts 3, 4 and 6 all swung hard left and went from 55% to 70% D, while Republican Districts 1, 2, and 5 had no change, which is a really hard scenario to imagine.
The Constitution both requires states to have a Republican form of government, and for people to have equal protection under the laws. It is at least persuasively arguable that partisan gerrymandering serves to negate both of these factors, as it makes the government massively unrepresentative and denies people equal protection under the law. While you might reject this, I find it hard to see how a system that could create a majority of representation out of 25-30% of the vote share meets either of those criteria.
This is some real naked both siding.
How so? Amendments trump the original text, that's the whole point.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Are you aware of the history of voting systems prior to Baker and Reynolds? Because that set standard is of a very modern vintage, and goes against your previous point of Courts only enforcing previously decided rulings and not making up their own Law.
The tests further up the quote tree that I linked. They're more appropriate because of the objective and nonpartisan statistical standards they entail. And they are fully within the ability to follow the VRA guidelines as evidenced by being able to apply the tests to current VRA compliant maps and have them pass the tests.
I feel like you aren't actually engaging in the points I am bringing. I already answered the ???? question and you subsequently agreed with my point. Suddenly that isn't valid, though? And your hypothetical seems to be confused with regards to the tests I linked to and how they function since you are suggesting a broad shift in vote patterns would invalidate a fair map under Mean-Median when a broad shift in voting patterns alters the Mean-Median by definition.
(Spoiled for size)
Considering we're talking about a ruling that literally considered instances from both fucking sides, and that it's astoundingly easy to find instances of both sides doing political gerrymandering...
...yes, it is.
Not really. They're altering the text and making a new document.
That shortest-splitlined Texas map racially gerrymanders the Austin area.
SCOTUS would tell you that is nobody's business.
Realistically that is the downside of mathematically driven formulas. That we lose the tool to enforce majority minority districts. Which is a price I'm willing to pay but I'm a little leery of pushing for because I'm not minority anything.
Using an algorithmic approach like the shortest line is one of the few ways I see of restoring faith in the "fairness" of the foundation of our electoral process for people of all stripes.
It also doesnt work. Which is one reason why libertarians like it
I knew it was too good to be true.