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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) of them go the same way sometimes.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Even in the dissent, when Kagan talks about the test she considers fine for the courts to use, she mentions that you need to prove that the gerrymandering was “substantial” but never defines “substantial”. She just lists the statistics from Maryland and NC and says they are obviously substantial.
Which is a terrible precedent, because literally every map that isn’t exactly in the middle will get sued and the minority will say their gerrymander is also “substantial,” since apparently there is no set standard.
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??
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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) if them go the same way sometimes.
p<.05 is the baseline for statistically significant in most fields. I see no reason to require a higher standard here.
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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) if them go the same way sometimes.
p<.05 is the baseline for statistically significant in most fields. I see no reason to require a higher standard here.
P<0.05 that the districts have any difference in their percantage win share? Because at that point you are enforcing (through math) proportional representation, which is not a requirement of the constitution.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Even in the dissent, when Kagan talks about the test she considers fine for the courts to use, she mentions that you need to prove that the gerrymandering was “substantial” but never defines “substantial”. She just lists the statistics from Maryland and NC and says they are obviously substantial.
Which is a terrible precedent, because literally every map that isn’t exactly in the middle will get sued and the minority will say their gerrymander is also “substantial,” since apparently there is no set standard.
“I know it when i see it” isnt that bad a test really.
Even in the dissent, when Kagan talks about the test she considers fine for the courts to use, she mentions that you need to prove that the gerrymandering was “substantial” but never defines “substantial”. She just lists the statistics from Maryland and NC and says they are obviously substantial.
Which is a terrible precedent, because literally every map that isn’t exactly in the middle will get sued and the minority will say their gerrymander is also “substantial,” since apparently there is no set standard.
“I know it when i see it” isnt that bad a test really.
The concern is that having such a loose standard means the courts now decide all districting instead of legislators. Which is not what we want.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I will say that I find the intent argument more compelling than the extent. Supposing you removed “substantial” from Kagan’s test and simply required:
First, the plaintiffs challenging a dis- tricting plan must prove that state officials’ “predominant purpose” in drawing a district’s lines was to “entrench [their party] in power” by diluting the votes of citizens favoring its rival. ...
And third, if the plaintiffs make those showings, the State must come up with a legitimate, non-partisan justification to save its map.
Where number 2 is now simply showing that any gerrymander exists.
Because of the intent, I think you could make a 14th amendment claim. And on the plus side it eliminates a bunch of stupid maps right now. But then gerrymander goes the way of bribes, in that it totally still happens but just not blatantly out in the open.
"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 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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) of them go the same way sometimes.
Which is why I said it needs to fail two subsequent elections. One could just be a fluke and things went weird. Two in a row is more suggestive. And yes, any percentage to decide statistically sufficient partisan Gerrymander will ultimately, technically be arbitrary same as any other standard. That does not strike me as sufficient grounds to permit partisan Gerrymanders, solely because there is not a perfect solution just a significantly better one.
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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) if them go the same way sometimes.
p<.05 is the baseline for statistically significant in most fields. I see no reason to require a higher standard here.
P<0.05 that the districts have any difference in their percentage win share? Because at that point you are enforcing (through math) proportional representation, which is not a requirement of the constitution.
It is as much a Constitutional requirement as One Person One Vote is.
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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) if them go the same way sometimes.
p<.05 is the baseline for statistically significant in most fields. I see no reason to require a higher standard here.
P<0.05 that the districts have any difference in their percentage win share? Because at that point you are enforcing (through math) proportional representation, which is not a requirement of the constitution.
It is as much a Constitutional requirement as One Person One Vote is.
Disagree. I can see that equal protection clause leads to one person one vote. But I do not see it leading to proportional representation. And I think proportional representation was definitely not what the founders intended.
"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 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.
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) of them go the same way sometimes.
Which is why I said it needs to fail two subsequent elections. One could just be a fluke and things went weird. Two in a row is more suggestive. And yes, any percentage to decide statistically sufficient partisan Gerrymander will ultimately, technically be arbitrary same as any other standard. That does not strike me as sufficient grounds to permit partisan Gerrymanders, solely because there is not a perfect solution just a significantly better one.
I don’t think it has to be allowed, I just think it should be the legislative branch that decides where the line is. And until that point I don’t think the judicial branch should substitute their own ideas, as they very clearly should not be creating maps.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The reason its not "any gerrymander" is because that definition is waay more nebulous than "significant" gerrymander.
Strongly disagree here. As a previous poster pointed out there is a large history of deciding what a statistically significant deviation is. That is a well decided point. Significant on the other hand is completely arbitrary.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Lots of court standards are arbitrary and decided on a case by case basis (“what would a reasonable person consider...”).
The reason its not "any gerrymander" is because that definition is waay more nebulous than "significant" gerrymander.
Strongly disagree here. As a previous poster pointed out there is a large history of deciding what a statistically significant deviation is. That is a well decided point. Significant on the other hand is completely arbitrary.
I mean... no. “Any gerrymandering” does not mean “a statistically significant amount”. And there isnt a good “consensus” as to what is statistically significant
The reason its not "any gerrymander" is because that definition is waay more nebulous than "significant" gerrymander.
Strongly disagree here. As a previous poster pointed out there is a large history of deciding what a statistically significant deviation is. That is a well decided point. Significant on the other hand is completely arbitrary.
I mean... no. “Any gerrymandering” does not mean “a statistically significant amount”. And there isnt a good “consensus” as to what is statistically significant
I feel like I’m being gaslight. If I asked 100 scientists to define any versus significant, all of the definitions for any would be similar, the definitions for significant would vary wildly. But, I guess, agree to disagree.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
There is a whole nother thread for discussion of gerrymandering. Let's use that one!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Lots of court standards are arbitrary and decided on a case by case basis (“what would a reasonable person consider...”).
It's why they're called judges! They use judgement.
Well this is the problem of power. Is it good judgement or bad. Dictators also use judgement. I'm no political scientist but from my limited reading in the field this is something that is core to the meta of the discipline. Who watches the watchers. Balances of power and all that jazz. Liberal democracy is frequently criticized but there is an argument that it has done a pretty decent job of improving human outcomes (there are compelling arguments in the other direction as well). Is a Supreme Court part of liberal democracy? It didn't used to be except in the United States but this concept is taking off across the world. This could be the natural proliferation of a good idea. It still makes me nervous.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Lots of court standards are arbitrary and decided on a case by case basis (“what would a reasonable person consider...”).
It's why they're called judges! They use judgement.
Well this is the problem of power. Is it good judgement or bad. Dictators also use judgement. I'm no political scientist but from my limited reading in the field this is something that is core to the meta of the discipline. Who watches the watchers. Balances of power and all that jazz. Liberal democracy is frequently criticized but there is an argument that it has done a pretty decent job of improving human outcomes (there are compelling arguments in the other direction as well). Is a Supreme Court part of liberal democracy? It didn't used to be except in the United States but this concept is taking off across the world. This could be the natural proliferation of a good idea. It still makes me nervous.
...this is against the entire US court system you know. Every decision ever.
It also doesnt work. Which is one reason why libertarians like it
I knew it was too good to be true.
It works perfectly, it's simply that we have allowed ourselves to be persuaded that racially gerrymandering ourselves is a good thing. It is not.
And of course, if you don't like that perfect method which can be run by an ideal machine and be completely fair there are a wide variety of other tests you can apply to make sure your maps are fair.
This is a solved problem. We can even keep pointlessly shooting ourselves in the foot with self racial gerrymandering and still have fair districts.
It also doesnt work. Which is one reason why libertarians like it
I knew it was too good to be true.
It works perfectly, it's simply that we have allowed ourselves to be persuaded that racially gerrymandering ourselves is a good thing. It is not.
And of course, if you don't like that perfect method which can be run by an ideal machine and be completely fair there are a wide variety of other tests you can apply to make sure your maps are fair.
This is a solved problem. We can even keep pointlessly shooting ourselves in the foot with self racial gerrymandering and still have fair districts.
Majority-minority means minority-minority in the legislative body. It's always struck me as odd since obviously the outcome is one legislator who gets ignored.
There is a whole nother thread for discussion of gerrymandering. Let's use that one!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Couple court things: they've agreed to hear the appeal of the Christie staffers convicted for shutting down the bridge, if you remember that fun story.
And the 5th Circuit panel hearing the ACA case that's basically "what Congress meant to do when they made the penalty for not having health care $0 was to repeal the whole law" is comically right wing. So the 5th will probably strike down the whole law and Roberts will get to choose between saving ACA or invalidating it again.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+4
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I've got a procedure question. So if the president wants to take another crack at the census question.
And conservatives are frothing about Robers, but that aside. If he wants to take another crack at it, he will have to develop another justification, have it tossed out at the federal court, then appeal it to SCOTUS, and the earliest that it could even be scheduled or heard would be October 2019? Is that the gist of it? I don't think SCOTUS holds emergency sessions.
Lots of court standards are arbitrary and decided on a case by case basis (“what would a reasonable person consider...”).
It's why they're called judges! They use judgement.
Well this is the problem of power. Is it good judgement or bad. Dictators also use judgement. I'm no political scientist but from my limited reading in the field this is something that is core to the meta of the discipline. Who watches the watchers. Balances of power and all that jazz. Liberal democracy is frequently criticized but there is an argument that it has done a pretty decent job of improving human outcomes (there are compelling arguments in the other direction as well). Is a Supreme Court part of liberal democracy? It didn't used to be except in the United States but this concept is taking off across the world. This could be the natural proliferation of a good idea. It still makes me nervous.
...this is against the entire US court system you know. Every decision ever.
This is off topic for the thread so I'll drop it. Just pointing out the Marbury v Madison principle was quite radical and very unique to the USA.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I've got a procedure question. So if the president wants to take another crack at the census question.
And conservatives are frothing about Robers, but that aside. If he wants to take another crack at it, he will have to develop another justification, have it tossed out at the federal court, then appeal it to SCOTUS, and the earliest that it could even be scheduled or heard would be October 2019? Is that the gist of it? I don't think SCOTUS holds emergency sessions.
There's a case in Maryland that the judge re-opened because of the data from the gerrymandering dude. That would be the fastest it could get back to SCOTUS, I imagine.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Lots of court standards are arbitrary and decided on a case by case basis (“what would a reasonable person consider...”).
It's why they're called judges! They use judgement.
Well this is the problem of power. Is it good judgement or bad. Dictators also use judgement. I'm no political scientist but from my limited reading in the field this is something that is core to the meta of the discipline. Who watches the watchers. Balances of power and all that jazz. Liberal democracy is frequently criticized but there is an argument that it has done a pretty decent job of improving human outcomes (there are compelling arguments in the other direction as well). Is a Supreme Court part of liberal democracy? It didn't used to be except in the United States but this concept is taking off across the world. This could be the natural proliferation of a good idea. It still makes me nervous.
...this is against the entire US court system you know. Every decision ever.
This is off topic for the thread so I'll drop it. Just pointing out the Marbury v Madison principle was quite radical and very unique to the USA.
And it's still too soon to say about the effects of the French Revolution...
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I've got a procedure question. So if the president wants to take another crack at the census question.
And conservatives are frothing about Robers, but that aside. If he wants to take another crack at it, he will have to develop another justification, have it tossed out at the federal court, then appeal it to SCOTUS, and the earliest that it could even be scheduled or heard would be October 2019? Is that the gist of it? I don't think SCOTUS holds emergency sessions.
I mean, they do, but they get to decide if it's an emergency, and they do stuff during the break.
And the 5th Circuit panel hearing the ACA case that's basically "what Congress meant to do when they made the penalty for not having health care $0 was to repeal the whole law" is comically right wing. So the 5th will probably strike down the whole law and Roberts will get to choose between saving ACA or invalidating it again.
To be fair, that totally was their goal and intention. It's just that getting rid of the mandate/penalty was the only thing they could actually pass, because they're terrible at this and it turns out most of the country likes having healthcare and not dying in ditches.
+4
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
And the 5th Circuit panel hearing the ACA case that's basically "what Congress meant to do when they made the penalty for not having health care $0 was to repeal the whole law" is comically right wing. So the 5th will probably strike down the whole law and Roberts will get to choose between saving ACA or invalidating it again.
To be fair, that totally was their goal and intention. It's just that getting rid of the mandate/penalty was the only thing they could actually pass, because they're terrible at this and it turns out most of the country likes having healthcare and not dying in ditches.
Dying in ditches would cost federal funds, please die in your own apartment so we can bill your family for your removal.
From the tax thing earlier I was right I am getting charged .08396 tax here that's. 04396 higher the minimum.
0
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
SCOTUSBlog is reporting that retired justice John Paul Stevens passed away this evening. They say it is 'confirmed' but I haven't seen it from any other sources.
Couple court things: they've agreed to hear the appeal of the Christie staffers convicted for shutting down the bridge, if you remember that fun story.
And the 5th Circuit panel hearing the ACA case that's basically "what Congress meant to do when they made the penalty for not having health care $0 was to repeal the whole law" is comically right wing. So the 5th will probably strike down the whole law and Roberts will get to choose between saving ACA or invalidating it again.
If it weren't for the disastrous consequences if they succeeded, it would be comical how eager they seem to be to win despite how potentially self-destructive this whole thing is for Republicans on the national stage.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for pancreatic cancer in New York City, the Supreme Court announced Friday.
"The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body," the court said.
Man this makes me nervous.
+28
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Eh. That's because most of the time it's detected too late to do much good. Whereas with her the medical team probably makes bets on which part they're taking a small tumor our of next. So same as before: not great news but not evidence she's going to keel over tomorrow either.
(Also this is the second time she's been treated for this. The first was 10 years ago, as she pointed out when she noted that a Senator who expected her to die then is now dead)
Yeah, fuck whoever wrote that sentence. That right there is rape culture.
Anyways, I have to wonder if we'll see the piece of shit that is Kavanaugh get run out of SCOTUS before the end of the next decade. Don't care if the fucker resigns or we get enough honest people in the Senate that decide "that SCOTUS has no place for a rapist piece of shit and Kavanaugh entitled, wealthy white male ass can piss up a rope."
Posts
Here’s the thing though, those tests don’t have a natural dividing line. Take the t-test, how far apart must the winning vote shares for the parties be, for the map to be considered illegal? 1%, 5%, 50%? And whatever number you pick, why is it a better number than 1% more? And what if a majority-minority district was setup on purpose to benefit say African Americans, but fails the t-test because of it?
These are the questions that I don’t think the courts can or should be deciding.
Edit - I should also mention that scotus also pointed out, the closer together the districts become the higher the probability you end up completely unbalanced on accident. I.E. if every district is a toss-up, then statistically you should see them all (or most) of them go the same way sometimes.
Which is a terrible precedent, because literally every map that isn’t exactly in the middle will get sued and the minority will say their gerrymander is also “substantial,” since apparently there is no set standard.
p<.05 is the baseline for statistically significant in most fields. I see no reason to require a higher standard here.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
P<0.05 that the districts have any difference in their percantage win share? Because at that point you are enforcing (through math) proportional representation, which is not a requirement of the constitution.
“I know it when i see it” isnt that bad a test really.
The concern is that having such a loose standard means the courts now decide all districting instead of legislators. Which is not what we want.
Where number 2 is now simply showing that any gerrymander exists.
Because of the intent, I think you could make a 14th amendment claim. And on the plus side it eliminates a bunch of stupid maps right now. But then gerrymander goes the way of bribes, in that it totally still happens but just not blatantly out in the open.
Which is why I said it needs to fail two subsequent elections. One could just be a fluke and things went weird. Two in a row is more suggestive. And yes, any percentage to decide statistically sufficient partisan Gerrymander will ultimately, technically be arbitrary same as any other standard. That does not strike me as sufficient grounds to permit partisan Gerrymanders, solely because there is not a perfect solution just a significantly better one.
It is as much a Constitutional requirement as One Person One Vote is.
Disagree. I can see that equal protection clause leads to one person one vote. But I do not see it leading to proportional representation. And I think proportional representation was definitely not what the founders intended.
I don’t think it has to be allowed, I just think it should be the legislative branch that decides where the line is. And until that point I don’t think the judicial branch should substitute their own ideas, as they very clearly should not be creating maps.
Strongly disagree here. As a previous poster pointed out there is a large history of deciding what a statistically significant deviation is. That is a well decided point. Significant on the other hand is completely arbitrary.
I mean... no. “Any gerrymandering” does not mean “a statistically significant amount”. And there isnt a good “consensus” as to what is statistically significant
I feel like I’m being gaslight. If I asked 100 scientists to define any versus significant, all of the definitions for any would be similar, the definitions for significant would vary wildly. But, I guess, agree to disagree.
It's why they're called judges! They use judgement.
Well this is the problem of power. Is it good judgement or bad. Dictators also use judgement. I'm no political scientist but from my limited reading in the field this is something that is core to the meta of the discipline. Who watches the watchers. Balances of power and all that jazz. Liberal democracy is frequently criticized but there is an argument that it has done a pretty decent job of improving human outcomes (there are compelling arguments in the other direction as well). Is a Supreme Court part of liberal democracy? It didn't used to be except in the United States but this concept is taking off across the world. This could be the natural proliferation of a good idea. It still makes me nervous.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
...this is against the entire US court system you know. Every decision ever.
It works perfectly, it's simply that we have allowed ourselves to be persuaded that racially gerrymandering ourselves is a good thing. It is not.
And of course, if you don't like that perfect method which can be run by an ideal machine and be completely fair there are a wide variety of other tests you can apply to make sure your maps are fair.
This is a solved problem. We can even keep pointlessly shooting ourselves in the foot with self racial gerrymandering and still have fair districts.
Majority-minority means minority-minority in the legislative body. It's always struck me as odd since obviously the outcome is one legislator who gets ignored.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
And the 5th Circuit panel hearing the ACA case that's basically "what Congress meant to do when they made the penalty for not having health care $0 was to repeal the whole law" is comically right wing. So the 5th will probably strike down the whole law and Roberts will get to choose between saving ACA or invalidating it again.
And conservatives are frothing about Robers, but that aside. If he wants to take another crack at it, he will have to develop another justification, have it tossed out at the federal court, then appeal it to SCOTUS, and the earliest that it could even be scheduled or heard would be October 2019? Is that the gist of it? I don't think SCOTUS holds emergency sessions.
This is off topic for the thread so I'll drop it. Just pointing out the Marbury v Madison principle was quite radical and very unique to the USA.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
There's a case in Maryland that the judge re-opened because of the data from the gerrymandering dude. That would be the fastest it could get back to SCOTUS, I imagine.
And it's still too soon to say about the effects of the French Revolution...
I mean, they do, but they get to decide if it's an emergency, and they do stuff during the break.
To be fair, that totally was their goal and intention. It's just that getting rid of the mandate/penalty was the only thing they could actually pass, because they're terrible at this and it turns out most of the country likes having healthcare and not dying in ditches.
ETA: NY Times with the obit.
If it weren't for the disastrous consequences if they succeeded, it would be comical how eager they seem to be to win despite how potentially self-destructive this whole thing is for Republicans on the national stage.
Man this makes me nervous.
It's not exactly something one bounces back from.
Eh. That's because most of the time it's detected too late to do much good. Whereas with her the medical team probably makes bets on which part they're taking a small tumor our of next. So same as before: not great news but not evidence she's going to keel over tomorrow either.
(Also this is the second time she's been treated for this. The first was 10 years ago, as she pointed out when she noted that a Senator who expected her to die then is now dead)
EDIT: Also, and I cannot stress this enough, but WHAT THE FUCK
Anyways, I have to wonder if we'll see the piece of shit that is Kavanaugh get run out of SCOTUS before the end of the next decade. Don't care if the fucker resigns or we get enough honest people in the Senate that decide "that SCOTUS has no place for a rapist piece of shit and Kavanaugh entitled, wealthy white male ass can piss up a rope."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.