• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered

Been waiting on the algorithm to take this out of the hands of humans.
 
trouble13 said:
So when the federal gov demanded states forfeit their voter data over to the feds and the states refused, you believe the feds had the authority to force them? Where does the federal gov get this power from?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That’s an entirely different situation. Gerrymandering is easily seen. The feds asking for voter data simply because a president’s ego was bruised that he didn’t win the popular vote is an obvious over reach by the feds.
 
RAMOSS said:
That will probably effect quite a few states. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Utah and Texas for example.
Click to expand...

None of those states are in the 4th district except Maryland, this ruling doesn't extend outside the district.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That's exactly what's pending before the Supremes currently. It's never been ruled on, but it will be shortly.
Click to expand...
Not that there is any good reason to have confidence that they will get this right with as bad as our SCOTUS is now.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
Not likely. We passed Prop 11 back in 2008 and Prop 20 in 2010 specifically to get rid of such issues.
Click to expand...

That's cool. Look at the leftist state policing itself while republican states have to be taken to court.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, "my" district is special in that it contains parts of 5 counties yet no whole county and parts of two cities that are about 80 miles apart. As white person I am a minority (about 13%) in this cleverly designed district which is mostly Hispanic (about 63%) and remains very blue even in a very red state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district
Click to expand...

Well, you live in blue ghetto within a red state. You do realize that with without gerrymandering, you would likely have (within the state) one to three additional blue districts and several districts that are currently solid that then become competitive (and some red districts that were even more solidly red).
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Well, you live in blue ghetto within a red state. You do realize that with without gerrymandering, you would likely have a one to three additional blue districts and several solid red districts that were not competitive (and some red districts that were even more solidly red).
Click to expand...

That largely depends on what a non-gerrymandered district system is defined to be. IMHO, it would lead to more purple districts - that could go one way or the other in any given election. My first suggestion would be a rule that no district could contain parts of more than one county: a district could contain 1.8 counties, 3.3 countiies or 4.0 counties but not parts of 5 counties like the district where I currently reside. Of course, counties within a district should border each other and look more like a block than a strip on a map (where possible).
 
fivethirtyeight has done 4-5 podcasts around gerrymandering that they've released in the last several weeks. Really interesting stuff.

They've mentioned that it's not all gerrymandering that is under consideration for the SCOTUS but only politically motivated gerrymandering.

States can still gerrymander in order to get a representative number of black, hispanic, etc representatives. No court cases are looking into that.
 
danarhea said:
This is huge, and it is not only going to affect Republican gerrymandered states, but Democratic ones too. I agree with the ruling. Partisan gerrymandering results in one side or the other not having representation in Congress for their locality, and it needs to go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/north-carolina-gerrymander.html
Click to expand...

There is nothing new here. Judges approve redistricting lines. North Carolina has had to go back to the drawing board before, as has Virginia and other states.

I favor drawing district lines by computer based on contiguous populations only. Let the chips fall where they may. Anything else is messing with the vote. My district was redrawn because Richmond had too many blacks and Chesterfield too many whites. Why is that fair?
 
Praxas said:
I don't see it as overreach, and so far I don't think their rulings have been incorrect on what they consider gerrymandered. However, I do admit I'd like to see what standard they are using to justify it. There could be a situation that is "borderline" which would be important on what they are using as justification.
Click to expand...

Last time this came up in SCOTUS, it was Kennedy who upheld gerrymandering, but only because there was no scientific standard to define it. The difference this time is that there are 2 different mathematical and statistical tests for it, and on that basis, I believe he will swing the other way and rule in favor of new maps. Once again, he will be the tiebreaker.
 
jimbo said:
There is nothing new here. Judges approve redistricting lines. North Carolina has had to go back to the drawing board before, as has Virginia and other states.

I favor drawing district lines by computer based on contiguous populations only. Let the chips fall where they may. Anything else is messing with the vote. My district was redrawn because Richmond had too many blacks and Chesterfield too many whites. Why is that fair?
Click to expand...

Because, if blacks are gerrymandered and packed into one single district, in order to dilute their vote in other areas, then they have less representation than is represented by their actual population, which is unconstitutional. This is racial gerrymandering, but this decision was based on partisan gerrymandering, which is a different animal.
 
danarhea said:
Because, if blacks are gerrymandered and packed into one single district, in order to dilute their vote in other areas, then they have less representation than is represented by their actual population, which is unconstitutional. This is racial gerrymandering, but this decision was based on partisan gerrymandering, which is a different animal.
Click to expand...

Same is true if you "spread" them out. That's why you need to take humans out of the total package, write the rules, and let the computer decide every 10 years.
 
jimbo said:
My district was redrawn because Richmond had too many blacks and Chesterfield too many whites. Why is that fair?
Click to expand...

Because as part of the civil rights act, decisions were made that would ease changes in congress that allowed more blacks to be voted into congressional positions.

You could draw the following districts as the civil rights act was passed (and this largely holds true today):
1) a district that was 60% black and would more likely elect a black congressman to represent them, and 2 districts that are 60% white which is more likely to elect a white congressman
2) 3 districts that have 20% black populations and 80% white populations which would be more likely to elect white congressman

It was deemed desirable at the time, and today.
 
danarhea said:
Because, if blacks are gerrymandered and packed into one single district, in order to dilute their vote in other areas, then they have less representation than is represented by their actual population, which is unconstitutional. This is racial gerrymandering, but this decision was based on partisan gerrymandering, which is a different animal.
Click to expand...

Works both ways. My vote on local issues now is useless.
 
jimbo said:
Works both ways. My vote on local issues now is useless.
Click to expand...

It boils down to intent. If the intent was to dilute the black vote, then it is unconstitutional.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That largely depends on what a non-gerrymandered district system is defined to be. IMHO, it would lead to more purple districts - that could go one way or the other in any given election. My first suggestion would be a rule that no district could contain parts of more than one county: a district could contain 1.8 counties, 3.3 countiies or 4.0 counties but not parts of 5 counties like the district where I currently reside. Of course, counties within a district should border each other and look more like a block than a strip on a map (where possible).
Click to expand...

Agreed. The gerrymander, of course, works by creating ghettos of the opposite party. If its a red state, they try to throw all the Dems into a few districts and then spread the rest around so they can't interfere with there majorities. More specifically, they try create a couple of 70-80% blue districts and then sort the other districts out so they have super-majorities (as many 60% red districts as possible). They draw the map to effect that kind of distribution. The way congressional districts are draw right now, the Dems need about 55% of the popular vote to control the house. In 2012, the Cons controlled the house even though they lost the popular vote.

A reasonable man would have a problem with the House of Representatives not be representative.
 
robertblake60 said:
Because as part of the civil rights act, decisions were made that would ease changes in congress that allowed more blacks to be voted into congressional positions.

You could draw the following districts as the civil rights act was passed (and this largely holds true today):
1) a district that was 60% black and would more likely elect a black congressman to represent them, and 2 districts that are 60% white which is more likely to elect a white congressman
2) 3 districts that have 20% black populations and 80% white populations which would be more likely to elect white congressman

It was deemed desirable at the time, and today.
Click to expand...

What happens is judges get to decide who goes to Congress, not the voters. Setting up districts to favor minority groups is no different than setting up districts to favor majority groups. Wrong is wrong.

As I said, I now have no representation in Congress and no way of getting any. The Richmond black guy will always win.
 
jimbo said:
What happens is judges get to decide who goes to Congress, not the voters. Setting up districts to favor minority groups is no different than setting up districts to favor majority groups. Wrong is wrong.

As I said, I now have no representation in Congress and no way of getting any. The Richmond black guy will always win.
Click to expand...

That is a fallacy. If black votes are diluted by gerrymandering, then those black voters are not getting to decide who goes to congress, are they?
 
danarhea said:
It boils down to intent. If the intent was to dilute the black vote, then it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow if the intent is to dilute the white vote it's not.

In other words, the cure for gerrymandering is gerrymandering.
 
robertblake60 said:
fivethirtyeight has done 4-5 podcasts around gerrymandering that they've released in the last several weeks. Really interesting stuff.

They've mentioned that it's not all gerrymandering that is under consideration for the SCOTUS but only politically motivated gerrymandering.

States can still gerrymander in order to get a representative number of black, hispanic, etc representatives. No court cases are looking into that.
Click to expand...



What you describe is not gerrymandering. Definition: "manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class." What you describe is not meant to favor one party or class, but to set districts that are representative of all parties and classes. BTW, the name of the man that gerrymandering is named after, "Gerry", is pronounced with a hard "G". I doubt that will ever come about.
 
danarhea said:
That is a fallacy. If black votes are diluted by gerrymandering, then those black voters are not getting to decide who goes to congress, are they?
Click to expand...

But it's O K to dilute the white vote?

As I said, today it's possible to generate districts by population only. I advocate that.
 
jimbo said:
But it's O K to dilute the white vote?

As I said, today it's possible to generate districts by population only. I advocate that.
Click to expand...

Districts should as much as possible be square or rectangular. And, BTW, the gerrymandering has in almost all cases diluted the black vote, and sometimes the hispanic vote, except in Maryland and California, which will also be corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom