• 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!

Gerrymandering study finds fair districts can look strange, while symmetrical ones may be biased

CletusWilbury

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
932
Reaction score
292
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Gerrymandering study finds fair districts can look strange, while symmetrical ones may be biased

...
As the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates over whether a mathematical formula dubbed the "Efficiency Gap" should be used to detect unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, this new theorem proves that in some cases, the Efficiency Gap will flag only bizarrely shaped districts as being constitutional.
...
The researchers pointed to three general criteria that are followed in the U.S. today for drawing the boundaries of districts. Only the first comes from the Supreme Court: Each district should contain roughly equal represented populations, a criterion known as "one person, one vote," which results from the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause to the Constitution.

The second criterion is a law in some states, but not all: Districts should be compact in shape. They shouldn't look weird to the eye, like the salamander-shaped district Elbridge Gerry drew in 1812.

There's no legal requirement for the third criterion, and the case currently before the Supreme Court asks the Court to make such a requirement: Districts should balance the votes of people belonging to different political parties in a way that's roughly equal.
...
In short, Mixon and Alexeev's new theorem proves that sometimes only two of these three criteria can be satisfied using the Efficiency Gap methodology. In those cases, when districts are drawn to contain equal numbers of voters and balance between the parties, the resulting shapes are highly asymmetrical. They look gerrymandered, but they're not.
...

I didn't know about the Supreme Court case. The Dems and GOP are gearing up for a big fight over redistricting in 2020.
 
Gerrymandering study finds fair districts can look strange, while symmetrical ones may be biased



I didn't know about the Supreme Court case. The Dems and GOP are gearing up for a big fight over redistricting in 2020.

I think that a good districting rule would be that no district can contain part(s) of more than one county. My district has parts of five counties and two cities (over 80 miles apart) but contains no whole county at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district
 
I think that a good districting rule would be that no district can contain part(s) of more than one county. My district has parts of five counties and two cities (over 80 miles apart) but contains no whole county at all.

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

That would not be good. For instance, look at Mississippi - it's got 82 counties, most of which are very, very rural. If no district could contain parts of more than one county, then - unless the urban areas were sliced into much smaller sections, the rural areas would be strongly overrepresented in the state legislature. Of course, most conservatives might see this as a very good thing...but what it does in reality is result in the votes of those in urban areas being worth far less than the votes in rural areas...and that's wrong (and - I believe - unconstitutional).
 
That would not be good. For instance, look at Mississippi - it's got 82 counties, most of which are very, very rural. If no district could contain parts of more than one county, then - unless the urban areas were sliced into much smaller sections, the rural areas would be strongly overrepresented in the state legislature. Of course, most conservatives might see this as a very good thing...but what it does in reality is result in the votes of those in urban areas being worth far less than the votes in rural areas...and that's wrong (and - I believe - unconstitutional).

Perhaps you did not understand my idea. There would be no limit on the number of whole counties within a district - simply removing the ability to use more than one part of a county in any single district.
 
I didn't know about the Supreme Court case. The Dems and GOP are gearing up for a big fight over redistricting in 2020.

Yup, thankfully it will be a presidential election year. It's the only reason I kind of hope Trump doesn't get impeached. The massive turnout from Democrats should give them control of most redistricting, and therefore the house for the next decade. I'd happily just see Dems win this case, and force fair redistricting before that. Then just impeach Trump.
 
From the article referenced in the OP

Everything you need to know about the Supreme Court’s big gerrymandering case WP


In the last big partisan redistricting case, Vieth v. Jubelirer, decided in 2004, a plurality opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia declared that partisan gerrymanders are not the purview of courts — that is, they are “non-justiciable.”

The swing vote in Vieth was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy agreed that the Pennsylvania districts at issue in the case should not be struck down by the court. But he remained open to the idea that an extreme partisan map could be justiciable.

What was missing, Kennedy wrote, was a clear standard for deciding when a little partisan mischief became unconstitutional. As Kennedy put it, “That no such standard has emerged in this case should not be taken to prove that none will emerge in the future.”

What standard is being used in this case?

The plaintiffs in Gill base their argument on one particularly promising measure, which is known as the “efficiency gap.”
 
Figure the odds of that actually happening.

I agree. Unless forced by the feds then it is unlikely that districting will not be used to allow congress critters to pick their voters rather than the other way around.
 
Yup, thankfully it will be a presidential election year. It's the only reason I kind of hope Trump doesn't get impeached. The massive turnout from Democrats should give them control of most redistricting, and therefore the house for the next decade. I'd happily just see Dems win this case, and force fair redistricting before that. Then just impeach Trump.

I think there are better algorithms than what the plantiffs are arguing. I hope SCOTUS considers those.
 
I agree. Unless forced by the feds then it is unlikely that districting will not be used to allow congress critters to pick their voters rather than the other way around.


SCOTUS could say since there are algorithms that meet the criteria, leave it up to the States to use one that meets all the criteria.
I don't understand Scalia's position at all.
 
Gerrymandering study finds fair districts can look strange, while symmetrical ones may be biased



I didn't know about the Supreme Court case. The Dems and GOP are gearing up for a big fight over redistricting in 2020.

The idea that a district should not look weird to the eye is ridiculous.

And the idea that the districts should balance the political parties of the people is plain old stupid. How would such a district look in Blood Red Wyoming? What about Sky Blue California?

Give me a break. This case should never have even reached the S.C. because it is so ridiculous.
 
I think that a good districting rule would be that no district can contain part(s) of more than one county. My district has parts of five counties and two cities (over 80 miles apart) but contains no whole county at all.

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

Canada solved the problem by handing the drawing of ridings over to independent agencies as a result most of our ridings both federal and provincial follow political boundaries, either neighbourhoods, counties, or municipalities and are generally considered free of gerrymandering. For example here is Montreal they follow the neighbourhood and/or borough boundaries. Similar people are in the same riding. And as another advantage over the US system ridings actually have names that correspond to the area they cover instead of District x.
 
SCOTUS could say since there are algorithms that meet the criteria, leave it up to the States to use one that meets all the criteria.
I don't understand Scalia's position at all.

It was my impression that the SCOTUS did not make law and that the VRA does not exactly specify what exactly constitutes a "fair" method of states drawing up congressional districts.
 
gerrymandering is among the issues that i'm most passionate about. i really hope that the SCOTUS at least does something that makes it harder for the two major parties to burrow themselves into power with "safe" districts.
 
gerrymandering is among the issues that i'm most passionate about. i really hope that the SCOTUS at least does something that makes it harder for the two major parties to burrow themselves into power with "safe" districts.

I hope they make it where no socialist scumbag can ever hold office again (read DNC, liberal, progressive, etc)......wish in one hand, as the saying goes.
 
I do not believe that districts need to be fair (read: balanced) politically. They should be reasonable and rational geographically, and a few other factors. If a particular area leans naturally to one side, so be it.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that districts need to be fair (read: balanced) politically. They should be reasonable and rational geographically, and a few other factors. If a particular area leans naturally to one side, so be it.

Consider:

Gerrymandering in Michigan is among the nation’s worst, new test claims

...
Last year, Michigan Democrats won more overall votes for state House than Republicans. It was by a whisper, about half of one percentage point.

But Democrats got walloped in the race that counts, as the GOP swept 63 of 110 seats.

How could that be?
...
 
Back
Top Bottom