(02-05-2022 04:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 03:33 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 11:13 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

CLTPirate Wrote:

Look at your own state and ask which party the congressional districts favor

That graphic is from 2014. Nice try though!

Food for thought: IF you want to be taken seriously on topics like this. you also need to provide graphics for this topic for Maryland, Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts....and many others.

Matter of fact, I'll give you a heads up on something to look into: With Democrat-run states hemorrhaging population, how have they managed to work what appears to be a NET GAIN of 6 Democrat House seats in the next election?

Hint: They've gerrymandered out the Republican(s) seats in their state....Look into that, if you're being honest and want to avoid the label of Troll.

Blue states certainly didn't hemorrhage population between 2010-2020, which is what the current redistricting is based upon. The only state where it could be called anything near hemorrhaging population was ruby red West Virginia, losing 3.2%. The only other states that lost population were similarly red Mississippi (-0.2%), and bright blue Illinois (-.1%).

I believe NY and CA also lost congressional seats

You are correct, they did. Along with several other states. But that was due to slower population growth than in states that added seats, not due to a loss of population and certainly not a hemorrhaging of people.

Gerrymandered map in NY has been tossed again on appeal, 3-2.

Fl map submitted by beast-mode DeSantis himself, has been signed into law, creating as many as 4 additional R House seats. We'll see how that one stands up.


https://www.americanliberty.news/governm...f/2022/04/
https://www.americanliberty.news/politic...f/2022/04/

(02-04-2022 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:08 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now do Maryland, Illinois, and NY

You're right, those three are all Democratic gerrymanders. And Texas, Georgia and Florida are all Republican gerrymanders. And there are other states on both sides, it certainly isn't limited to those 6.

They're all wrong, but how do we stop it? Neither side is going to unilaterally disarm and stop gerrymandering in states they control while the other side continues to gerrymander. It will take a federal solution that takes effect in all 50 states at the same time so one side doesn't have an advantage. And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

I think the point is we have one side that's grandstanding on the issue but don't want to discuss what they're doing.

Well said.

(02-04-2022 04:57 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Texas practically wrote the book on Gerrymandering. Texas is so good at it, we almost redistricted Shelia Jackson Lee out of office. Fortunately enough people caught the mistake and she will be returning. Jackson Lee is an idiot and her stupidity has been a driving force in keeping Texas a very Red state.

The biggest gerrymander was the Democratic one in Texas in 1990. Harris County (Houston) went from 600 precincts to 1700 to accomodate the gerrymanders. The Democrats hadn't won a statewide election in nearly 10 years and still had a 17-15 advantage in the House before Delay was able to get a redistricting passed in 2002.

Judge Tosses New Mexico US House Districts as Gerrymandered

Quote:In a surprise move on Tuesday, a judge in New Mexico overturned the lines for the state's three U.S. House districts.

District Judge Fred Van Soelen accepted the Republicans' argument that the new district lines were a blatant case of gerrymandering.

''The judge said that Senate Bill 1 [the new map of House districts enacted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature] was an attempt to dilute Republican strength and showed a lack of community interests,'' state GOP Chairman Steve Pearce told Newsmax on Wednesday.

The ruling was the result of a suit filed by Pearce and the state Republican Party charging blatant partisanship in the sculpting of the three U.S. House districts in the Land of Enchantment after the 2021 Census.

Pearce noted that ''the Legislature created a nonpartisan redistricting commission and then they completely ignored what the commission was recommending and did exactly what it wanted.''

Of particular interest, Pearce told us, was the 2nd District, which includes the southern two-thirds of New Mexico and where Republican Yvette Herrell unseated Democratic Rep. Xochitl Torres Small in 2020.

''The district went from plus-9 percent for Republicans to plus-3 percent for Republicans,'' he said, adding that ''communities of interest were not considered. The goal was to dilute the Republican vote.''

What happens next is unclear. According to Pearce, the judge could send the task of redrawing the districts to another judge or back to the Legislature. Or he could do the redrawing himself.

For now, he added, ''the court is agreeing with us that good governance should be nonpartisan.''

Districts should only be redrawn if a state gains a rep or loses a rep.

Nah, politics change, populations not nearly as quickly.

‘22 for example, seems a consensus that US House is likely to flip. Perhaps historically bigly. That’ll likely affect down ballot races for State House and Senate races too.

That State legislature should then have the ability to redistrict as they see fit, knowing it will be challenged. Gets approved? Great, roll with it. Gets shot down? Like NM? Go give it another whack.

I’ve understood NM had an independent commission formed headed by a (former?) State SC JUSTICE? They presented two different possible maps and the State Leg shot them both down, then proceeded to draw their own horribly gerrymandered map.

It’s now been called blatant and thrown out. Tell ‘em to stop the pouting and get back to work.

(04-24-2022 04:35 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Judge Tosses New Mexico US House Districts as Gerrymandered

Quote:In a surprise move on Tuesday, a judge in New Mexico overturned the lines for the state's three U.S. House districts.

District Judge Fred Van Soelen accepted the Republicans' argument that the new district lines were a blatant case of gerrymandering.

''The judge said that Senate Bill 1 [the new map of House districts enacted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature] was an attempt to dilute Republican strength and showed a lack of community interests,'' state GOP Chairman Steve Pearce told Newsmax on Wednesday.

The ruling was the result of a suit filed by Pearce and the state Republican Party charging blatant partisanship in the sculpting of the three U.S. House districts in the Land of Enchantment after the 2021 Census.

Pearce noted that ''the Legislature created a nonpartisan redistricting commission and then they completely ignored what the commission was recommending and did exactly what it wanted.''

Of particular interest, Pearce told us, was the 2nd District, which includes the southern two-thirds of New Mexico and where Republican Yvette Herrell unseated Democratic Rep. Xochitl Torres Small in 2020.

''The district went from plus-9 percent for Republicans to plus-3 percent for Republicans,'' he said, adding that ''communities of interest were not considered. The goal was to dilute the Republican vote.''

What happens next is unclear. According to Pearce, the judge could send the task of redrawing the districts to another judge or back to the Legislature. Or he could do the redrawing himself.

For now, he added, ''the court is agreeing with us that good governance should be nonpartisan.''

Districts should only be redrawn if a state gains a rep or loses a rep.

That would lead to other problems, states that aren't growing faster or slower than the average sometimes go for decades without gaining or losing a seat. Population shifts within a state make it necessary to revisit the lines after every census, or some districts could end up with far less or many more people than the other districts in the state.

Eric Holder and his merry band of anti American Marxists are using George Soros funds to drive their "Sue til they are Blue" strategy. Don't matter what your state constitution says, congressional districts are now determined by some leftist judge down the line. They have no shame, it's gerrymandering on steroids.

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

Where do you plan to find the angels to serve on those "independent" commissions?

If we went with multi-member districts with proportional voting, the problem would go away. Another approach might be to require that a state's districts be set up so as to deliver a result within some percentage, maybe 10%, of the total vote in the state.

(04-25-2022 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

Where do you plan to find the angels to serve on those "independent" commissions?

BINGO

No matter what system is in place, decisions will have to be made drawing the lines. There will always be situations where a close call will have to be made that will either favor team red or team blue.

There isn't a great answer because all answers involve people and all people have bias

(04-25-2022 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

Where do you plan to find the angels to serve on those "independent" commissions?

If we went with multi-member districts with proportional voting, the problem would go away. Another approach might be to require that a state's districts be set up so as to deliver a result within some percentage, maybe 10%, of the total vote in the state.

(04-25-2022 09:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-25-2022 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

Where do you plan to find the angels to serve on those "independent" commissions?

BINGO

No matter what system is in place, decisions will have to be made drawing the lines. There will always be situations where a close call will have to be made that will either favor team red or team blue.

There isn't a great answer because all answers involve people and all people have bias

Indeed, even if the independent commission has real power there will always be the problem with favoring one side or the other. Independent members are usually installed as tie-breakers, and that favors whichever party has more power in selecting commission members since the vast majority of professed independents actually lean towards one party or the other. If we had independent commissions with real power to draw the lines in every state I do think we'd have less gerrymandering, but my no means would it be eliminated.

At present I can only see two plausible ways to eliminate political gerrymandering. Option 1 is national legislation banning political gerrymandering, and then we have a cumbersome process relying on the federal courts to rule on all the state maps after each redistricting cycle. And that's IF the Supreme Court didn't strike down the ban on political gerrymandering, which would put us back at square 1.

Option 2 is Owl's idea, some form of proportional representation. I assume we'd need a Constitutional amendment to switch to that, although as we were discussing in another thread the Constitution already only requires House members to live in the state they represent, not in their district. The parties could each nominate a list of candidates, 1 for each House seat in the state. Order would be determined by how many votes each candidate got in the primaries. House seats would then be proportionally awarded based upon the parties percentage of the vote in the general election, so for example in Maryland if the GOP list got 36% of the vote as GOP House candidates did in 2020, they get 36% of the state's seats (3 of the 8 available) and the first 3 names on the GOP list would be sent to Congress, while the Democrats send the first 5 people on their list.

We'd see dramatic change compared to the current system, a few examples from big states -

California's new map has 43 Democratic leaning seats, 7 Republican and 2 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Republicans got the 33.7% of the vote they got for House candidates in 2020, they'd get 18 seats while Democrats took 34.

Florida's new map has 18 Republican leaning seats, 8 Democratic and 2 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Democrats got the 47.2% of the vote they got for House candidates in 2020, they'd get 13 seats while Republicans took 15.

Texas' new map has 24 Republican leaning seats, 13 Democratic and 1 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Democrats got the 44.1% of the vote they got for House candidates in 2020, they'd get 17 seats while Republicans took 21.

New York's map (currently in litigation) has 20 Democratic leaning seats, 4 Republican and 2 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Republicans got the 32.8% of the vote their House candidates got in 2020, they'd get 9 seats while the Democrats got 17.

I don't know how that would play out over all 435 seats, but I think we'd have a small majority in the House for one party or the other given the 51% D 49% R vote in 2020.

Owl maybe your idea for proportional representation is different and might not require a Constitutional amendment?

(04-25-2022 11:27 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-25-2022 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

Where do you plan to find the angels to serve on those "independent" commissions?

If we went with multi-member districts with proportional voting, the problem would go away. Another approach might be to require that a state's districts be set up so as to deliver a result within some percentage, maybe 10%, of the total vote in the state.

(04-25-2022 09:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-25-2022 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And independent commissions need real power if they're going to impose fairer maps, NY has one but the legislature gets to take over if they vote down its recommendations twice.

Where do you plan to find the angels to serve on those "independent" commissions?

BINGO

No matter what system is in place, decisions will have to be made drawing the lines. There will always be situations where a close call will have to be made that will either favor team red or team blue.

There isn't a great answer because all answers involve people and all people have bias

Indeed, even if the independent commission has real power there will always be the problem with favoring one side or the other. Independent members are usually installed as tie-breakers, and that favors whichever party has more power in selecting commission members since the vast majority of professed independents actually lean towards one party or the other. If we had independent commissions with real power to draw the lines in every state I do think we'd have less gerrymandering, but my no means would it be eliminated.

At present I can only see two plausible ways to eliminate political gerrymandering. Option 1 is national legislation banning political gerrymandering, and then we have a cumbersome process relying on the federal courts to rule on all the state maps after each redistricting cycle. And that's IF the Supreme Court didn't strike down the ban on political gerrymandering, which would put us back at square 1.

Option 2 is Owl's idea, some form of proportional representation. I assume we'd need a Constitutional amendment to switch to that, although as we were discussing in another thread the Constitution already only requires House members to live in the state they represent, not in their district. The parties could each nominate a list of candidates, 1 for each House seat in the state. Order would be determined by how many votes each candidate got in the primaries. House seats would then be proportionally awarded based upon the parties percentage of the vote in the general election, so for example in Maryland if the GOP list got 36% of the vote as GOP House candidates did in 2020, they get 36% of the state's seats (3 of the 8 available) and the first 3 names on the GOP list would be sent to Congress, while the Democrats send the first 5 people on their list.

We'd see dramatic change compared to the current system, a few examples from big states -

California's new map has 43 Democratic leaning seats, 7 Republican and 2 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Republicans got the 33.7% of the vote they got for House candidates in 2020, they'd get 18 seats while Democrats took 34.

Florida's new map has 18 Republican leaning seats, 8 Democratic and 2 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Democrats got the 47.2% of the vote they got for House candidates in 2020, they'd get 13 seats while Republicans took 15.

Texas' new map has 24 Republican leaning seats, 13 Democratic and 1 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Democrats got the 44.1% of the vote they got for House candidates in 2020, they'd get 17 seats while Republicans took 21.

New York's map (currently in litigation) has 20 Democratic leaning seats, 4 Republican and 2 highly competitive. Under proportional representation, if the Republicans got the 32.8% of the vote their House candidates got in 2020, they'd get 9 seats while the Democrats got 17.

I don't know how that would play out over all 435 seats, but I think we'd have a small majority in the House for one party or the other given the 51% D 49% R vote in 2020.

Owl maybe your idea for proportional representation is different and might not require a Constitutional amendment?

If you want to eliminate gerrymandering you have to eliminate the provision mandating minority-majority districts and let all states go back to pure geography.

Gerrymandering is like what the SC said about pornography....people know it when they see it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-g..._permalink

"...The broader point is that this rebuke by New York’s top court, with every judge appointed by a Democratic Governor, puts the lie to the party’s holier-than-thou pose on redistricting. For years gerrymandering generally favored Democrats nationwide, and back then it was treated as a brute fact of political life. As soon as it looked as if Republicans might gain an edge, Democrats began calling it a danger to the republic. New York proves that was a charade all along."