Meathead Posted March 30, 2017 Author Share Posted March 30, 2017 I know you didn't say that. I said that, then I asked you to provide what would be better, and your reasons why. I have no idea why you'd be upset by that. then i apologize. it looked like you were trying to paraphrase what i said in regards to me supplying a better way, thats not my job. all we have to do is look at how the districts are drawn by partisans to see that there is enormous intentional bias to get the result desired by the partisans personally i like the idea of using a computer program to define the boundaries based on the most recent census data Algorithms like this one prioritize compactness -- that is, ensuring that voters are geographically close together. One of the telltale signs of gerrymandering is dramatically non-compact districts that squiggle and squirm out in all different directions -- evidence of lawmakers trying to bring far-flung voters into a single district in order to achieve the partisan mix that best favors their party. Or, as Obama said: districts that let politicians pick their voters, rather than the other way around. Many political scientists are skeptical about the merits of drawing districts based on compactness. Their general argument is that districts are ideally based on communities of interest -- people who share a common demography, culture, class, etc. There's no particular reason, they say, that grouping voters by geographic proximity ensures this coherent community any more than drawing lines according to any other metric. Moreover, algorithms can be biased too. It's a point well-taken. But "community of interest" is an incredibly squishy term. You can define it pretty much however you want. As I wrote in 2014, if you're a politician in search of a figleaf justification for putting voters from disparate corners of the state into the same congressional district, you can always find one. Communities of interest are a great ideal, but in practice they're so fuzzy that they open the door to all manner of redistricting shenanigans, as we've seen. The main obstacles to automated redistricting are legal. For starters, the Voting Rights Act mandates that in some states, race needs to be a factor in redistricting to ensure that minority voters are represented in Congress. Again: a nice idea. But there's a tradeoff: packing all your minority voters into one district diminishes their clout everywhere else. We've seen this in the real world in Florida: the 5th District was originally drawn as a majority-minority district by Democrats. But Republicans saw fit to keep it that way in subsequent years, because it gave black voters less power in the surrounding districts. In the end, the prospect of an open, transparent algorithm drawing districts based on population and compactness may be an improvement upon the status quo, where politicians draw the boundaries that best serve their interests. Of course, the chances of this ever becoming reality are slim: doing so would require state legislators to voluntarily cede their redistricting powers to a computer program. And if there's anything lawmakers dislike, it's giving up power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I don't know how this could be solved, but the most intransigent politicians from both the left and right reside in districts where their biggest threats are not from the opposing party but from someone who can outflank them from the most extreme end in the primary process. It's a problem, I won't say that gerrymandering is the biggest reason why the political process has broken down and why politicians are failing the country, but this certainly isn't helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Been around since day one, only whined about when GOP is doing it, as is the right of the winners of election. Be upset that the media and your so-called teachers never told you about it when the Democrats were using it in a vile way, again the right of the party who won to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Gerrymandering is always evil in the eyes of the weaker party at that exact moment. I remember all the whining stories about the Dem doing it during the 70s and 80.s Ahhh...the old "works both ways......so it must be ok" rationalization..... It sucks...so does un fettered money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Telling that the newbies are engaged here and only a sparse bunch of others and Tasker, the raging homosexual joins them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 30, 2017 Author Share Posted March 30, 2017 Been around since day one, only whined about when GOP is doing it, as is the right of the winners of election. Be upset that the media and your so-called teachers never told you about it when the Democrats were using it in a vile way, again the right of the party who won to do it. 1. this is the third time youve said this. its not even true, i recall ppl complaining about it when it was the dems doing it, one of them being me c. leaving something broken just bc its always been broken is retardered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1. this is the third time youve said this. its not even true, i recall ppl complaining about it when it was the dems doing it, one of them being me c. leaving something broken just bc its always been broken is retardered stop copying my style asshat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 30, 2017 Author Share Posted March 30, 2017 lmao there isnt enough acid in the world to make that happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 stop copying my style asshat Style? You have style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 lmao there isnt enough acid in the world to make that happen you going from 1 to c. That's all me. I do that. You copycst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) then i apologize. it looked like you were trying to paraphrase what i said in regards to me supplying a better way, thats not my job. all we have to do is look at how the districts are drawn by partisans to see that there is enormous intentional bias to get the result desired by the partisans personally i like the idea of using a computer program to define the boundaries based on the most recent census data Algorithms like this one prioritize compactness -- that is, ensuring that voters are geographically close together. One of the telltale signs of gerrymandering is dramatically non-compact districts that squiggle and squirm out in all different directions -- evidence of lawmakers trying to bring far-flung voters into a single district in order to achieve the partisan mix that best favors their party. Or, as Obama said: districts that let politicians pick their voters, rather than the other way around. Many political scientists are skeptical about the merits of drawing districts based on compactness. Their general argument is that districts are ideally based on communities of interest -- people who share a common demography, culture, class, etc. There's no particular reason, they say, that grouping voters by geographic proximity ensures this coherent community any more than drawing lines according to any other metric. Moreover, algorithms can be biased too. It's a point well-taken. But "community of interest" is an incredibly squishy term. You can define it pretty much however you want. As I wrote in 2014, if you're a politician in search of a figleaf justification for putting voters from disparate corners of the state into the same congressional district, you can always find one. Communities of interest are a great ideal, but in practice they're so fuzzy that they open the door to all manner of redistricting shenanigans, as we've seen. The main obstacles to automated redistricting are legal. For starters, the Voting Rights Act mandates that in some states, race needs to be a factor in redistricting to ensure that minority voters are represented in Congress. Again: a nice idea. But there's a tradeoff: packing all your minority voters into one district diminishes their clout everywhere else. We've seen this in the real world in Florida: the 5th District was originally drawn as a majority-minority district by Democrats. But Republicans saw fit to keep it that way in subsequent years, because it gave black voters less power in the surrounding districts. In the end, the prospect of an open, transparent algorithm drawing districts based on population and compactness may be an improvement upon the status quo, where politicians draw the boundaries that best serve their interests. Of course, the chances of this ever becoming reality are slim: doing so would require state legislators to voluntarily cede their redistricting powers to a computer program. And if there's anything lawmakers dislike, it's giving up power. Actually, it is your job. Saying "this sucks" achieves nothing, and comes across as nothing more than whining. As I said, any redrawing of district lines is gerrymandering, and relinquishing the very purpose of districts in favor of "compactness" doesn't make any real sense in terms of giving individuals a voice that represents their interests. So, while gerrymandering may be mildly problematic, any proposed solutions that I've ever seen are even more so; and it's vital to note that gerrymandering isn't the main cause of congressional stagnation. Edited March 30, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Actually, it is your job. Saying "this sucks" achieves nothing, and comes across as nothing more than whining. As I said, any redrawing of district lines is gerrymandering, and relinquishing the very purpose of districts in favor of "compactness" doesn't make any real sense in terms of giving individuals a voice that represents their interests. So, while gerrymandering may be mildly problematic, any proposed solutions that I've ever seen are even more so; and it's vital to note that gerrymandering isn't the main cause of congressional stagnation. The point of g'ing through the 60s and 70s and 80s was to spread the 99% Democrats assumed vote of African Americans so that this could tip the balance into districts where they were not proportionately represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I'm a fan of using a blind computer model to do it, in theory it should remove certain biases and make areas more competitive politically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I'm a fan of using a blind computer model to do it, in theory it should remove certain biases and make areas more competitive politically speaking. That isn't the purpose of districts though. The role of districts is that they are supposed to encapsulate a fairly politically homogenous group such that the groups interest can be represented by someone in Congress. Your idea makes congress less representative of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Let's be real, Congress doesn't represent the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Let's be real, Congress doesn't represent the people. Would you care to expound on that further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The point of g'ing through the 60s and 70s and 80s was to spread the 99% Democrats assumed vote of African Americans so that this could tip the balance into districts where they were not proportionately represented. 'They did it so we can too!' From the kindergarten Congress... do you even realize how asinine this sounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I'm a fan of using a blind computer model to do it, in theory it should remove certain biases and make areas more competitive politically speaking. Be careful what you look for. Can you actually believe that a male might have had a part in this? Damn, I thought I was done with putting up with pms. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3213842/robot-has-her-first-period-in-scientific-feat-which-will-bring-machines-even-closer-to-humanity/ A ROBOT has had its first period in an incredible scientific feat which brings us a step closer to creating robots in our own image. Scientists at Northwestern University used human cells to recreate a female reproductive system in a box. They even put it in a box! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 'They did it so we can too!' From the kindergarten Congress... do you even realize how asinine this sounds? it's the Dems who are playing like little sucky tw-ts over all this again, blame your grade 3 teacher for not learning about the Electoral College system or gerrymandering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Let's be real, Congress doesn't represent the people. Let me clarify. Individual representatives represent their individual constituencies, and are supposed to bring their issues to the House. Congress as a whole doesn't represent you, but your congressperson does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts