This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

Gerrymandering -- drawing political boundaries to give your party a numeric advantage over an opposing party -- is a difficult process to explain. If you find the notion confusing, check out the chart above -- adapted from one posted to Reddit this weekend -- and wonder no more.

This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see - The Washington Post

while the title is somewhat of an exaggeration, it's still a pretty decent and short breakdown of how gerrymandering works. he promotes the same solution that i have been arguing for : let computers draw the districts.

TeleKat · Mar 5, 2015

Gerrymandering: The process by which representatives choose their voters.

fmw · Mar 5, 2015

TeleKat said:
Gerrymandering: The process by which representatives choose their voters.

Excellent. Are you aware of Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary? What you said sounds like it came from that entertaining book. It is the sort of thing Bierce would have written.

joG · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
while the title is somewhat of an exaggeration, it's still a pretty decent and short breakdown of how gerrymandering works. he promotes the same solution that i have been arguing for : let computers draw the districts.

You are right. That is a very good demonstration.

Dittohead not! · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
while the title is somewhat of an exaggeration, it's still a pretty decent and short breakdown of how gerrymandering works. he promotes the same solution that i have been arguing for : let computers draw the districts.

According to that, if the population is 60% "blue", then gerrymandering is the only way that "red" can win. So, can we conclude that gerrymandering is a way for the minority party to be represented?

Or, perhaps the best option would be to draw lines according to geography and population, rather than according to "blue" and "red", then let the minority party try to persuade more people to join them.

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
According to that, if the population is 60% "blue", then gerrymandering is the only way that "red" can win. So, can we conclude that gerrymandering is a way for the minority party to be represented?

Or, perhaps the best option would be to draw lines according to geography and population, rather than according to "blue" and "red", then let the minority party try to persuade more people to join them.

i support using census data with no political data included. then the districts would be redrawn automatically every ten years as populations shift.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
i support using census data with no political data included. then the districts would be redrawn automatically every ten years as populations shift.

Would that data exclude age, race and income too? Many things can be used as "political" data. Would each district include rural as well as urban folks?

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

ttwtt78640 said:
Would that data exclude age, race and income too? Many things can be used as "political" data. Would each district include rural as well as urban folks?

i'd just use population data. no race, income, political lean, or any of that kind of stuff. just the where and how many data.

Dittohead not! · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
i'd just use population data. no race, income, political lean, or any of that kind of stuff. just the where and how many data.

That's how it ought to be.

Now, who is it who could write legislation to make it the way it ought to be?

radcen · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
while the title is somewhat of an exaggeration, it's still a pretty decent and short breakdown of how gerrymandering works. he promotes the same solution that i have been arguing for : let computers draw the districts.

Very interesting.

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
That's how it ought to be.

Now, who is it who could write legislation to make it the way it ought to be?

in our duopoly, it won't happen anytime soon.

Linc · Mar 5, 2015

California's commission style of remapping, not beholden to either party, is now being challenged in front of te SCOTUS.
Six other states also have this technique .

Helix said:
i support using census data with no political data included. then the districts would be redrawn automatically every ten years as populations shift.

Linc · Mar 5, 2015

Gerry-Mandering--the reason we have a 17th amendment--passed during the Progressive era with leaders like TR and WJB from both parties .

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

NIMBY said:
California's commission style of remapping, not beholden to either party, is now being challenged in front of te SCOTUS.
Six other states also have this technique .

what is their method? are they already doing this, or do they take other data into account?

Linc · Mar 5, 2015

They are already doing this.
They use a 'jungle primary' system for primaries, but it's different from Louisianas' which occurs on election day.

The California primary is during the primary season and the top two run against each other in the general.
It has occurred where two sitting congressmen or state legislators of the same party, both ways, have had to run against each other in the general.

Helix said:
what is their method? are they already doing this, or do they take other data into account?

Maddow had a great guest a few nights ago,
the GOP strategist who engineered the take-over of purple state and blue state legislatures in 2010.

Those legislatures then drew the lines for the current US House--one we will have until at least 2022.
Pretty impressive strategy which I had known about in general but did not know the details until the interview.

After the GOP House majority grew larger, the experts were thinking Boehner had more flexibility to make deals.
But the immigration XO by Obama changed all that.
Once Cantor was thrown out for trying a little immigration reform with the Senate bill, all bets were off for I.R. from the House.

DEMs like me are still fuming that Obama didn't keep his word to do the XO BEFORE the election--with the way the GOPs have reacted.
But you are an independent and not a party partisan like me.

However, when it comes to the issues, I believe I've proven that I am not a partisan--but that's for another time .

beerftw · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
while the title is somewhat of an exaggeration, it's still a pretty decent and short breakdown of how gerrymandering works. he promotes the same solution that i have been arguing for : let computers draw the districts.

its gone on since shortly after the founding of this country,the issue is rural votersnand urban voters have different needs and wants,and usually drift on party selection because their needs.ideally urban and rural votes would be devided to where both sides have fairly equal sayso.

gerry mandering is nothing new,infact the democrats did it for decades while the republicans threw a fit,then republicans did it while democrats threw a fit,heck im sure people screamed back when the qhig party the domocrat-republican party and federalist parties were still common.

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

beerftw said:
its gone on since shortly after the founding of this country,the issue is rural votersnand urban voters have different needs and wants,and usually drift on party selection because their needs.ideally urban and rural votes would be devided to where both sides have fairly equal sayso.

gerry mandering is nothing new,infact the democrats did it for decades while the republicans threw a fit,then republicans did it while democrats threw a fit,heck im sure people screamed back when the qhig party the domocrat-republican party and federalist parties were still common.

gerrymandering is the ultimate conflict of interest, and should be eliminated nationwide, IMO.

beerftw · Mar 5, 2015

Helix said:
gerrymandering is the ultimate conflict of interest, and should be eliminated nationwide, IMO.

i agree it should be,they alter lines between rural and urban districts to favor a side.the lines should be drawn in a way that grants fair representation with no special interests,and blocks anyone from changing them based on interests.

Helix · Mar 5, 2015

beerftw said:
i agree it should be,they alter lines between rural and urban districts to favor a side.the lines should be drawn in a way that grants fair representation with no special interests,and blocks anyone from changing them based on interests.

yep. i'm for drawing districts that only take population data into account.

This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see

Helix

TeleKat

fmw

joG

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Helix

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Helix

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Helix

Linc

NIMBY

Linc

NIMBY

Helix

Linc

NIMBY

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Helix

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Helix