(07-12-2016 11:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  State legislature gerrymandering isn't dictated by creation of minority/majority districts. Of 170 seats in NC about 1/3 of this years races have no challenger. They are so overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat that the other party doesn't even run anyone. Remember NC is about as evenly split as it gets.

So evenly split that it was run by democrats for 140 years. Now that the GOP has been in control for 4 years gerrymandering is suddenly a problem.

(07-12-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:13 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  He is an interesting suggestion I saw recently. Many of us are in states where the party in power (in my case the GOP) has stacked the deck to the point that there are many state house and senate races where one party or the other has absolutely no chance of winning the district. As a result sometimes there is no opposition as no one wishes to be the sacrificial lamb. The suggestion is that if you are in one of those districts you write in Gerry McGerrymander. The elections board would have to record those write in votes and in turn the media would possibly report this and bring attention to the practice of politicians picking their voters as opposed to voters picking their politicians. This could be a bipartisan effort.

Keep in mind that the major reason for gerrymandering is to create "safe" and "sure" minority districts to comply with the voting rights act. IIRC, the one really badly gerrymandered district in SC and the two really badly gerrymandered districts in NC are all minority districts. Once you gerrymander one or two, the rest have to be gerrymandered to some extent as well.
Let's say you have a state with 10 districts and 50/50 republican/democrat breakdown. In theory, you should get 5 R's and 5 D's. But you create a minority district that will probably go 80% D. That means that the other 90% of the population in the other districts is 48 republican, 42 democrat. With those ratios, R's are going to win 7-8 of those 9 districts. That's how it happens.
My own preferred way to avoid the problem is proportional representation.

While minority - majority districts are one aspect of drawing districts it isn't the only factor. Gerrymandering occurs when minority's are "packed" into that district. A minority/majority district that gets 80% of the vote is gerrymandering.

And that's exactly what you have to do to comply with the voting rights legislation.

I also live in the south and the representatives are kind of a joke. Either you get a super religious social conservative nutjob, or a race-baiting, bomb-throwing liberal (usually black).

(07-12-2016 05:20 PM)CameramanJ Wrote:  Gerry Man der Ring rolls off the tongue better IMO

His grandpa was Gerry van der Mander, a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium.

(07-13-2016 08:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:13 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  He is an interesting suggestion I saw recently. Many of us are in states where the party in power (in my case the GOP) has stacked the deck to the point that there are many state house and senate races where one party or the other has absolutely no chance of winning the district. As a result sometimes there is no opposition as no one wishes to be the sacrificial lamb. The suggestion is that if you are in one of those districts you write in Gerry McGerrymander. The elections board would have to record those write in votes and in turn the media would possibly report this and bring attention to the practice of politicians picking their voters as opposed to voters picking their politicians. This could be a bipartisan effort.

Keep in mind that the major reason for gerrymandering is to create "safe" and "sure" minority districts to comply with the voting rights act. IIRC, the one really badly gerrymandered district in SC and the two really badly gerrymandered districts in NC are all minority districts. Once you gerrymander one or two, the rest have to be gerrymandered to some extent as well.
Let's say you have a state with 10 districts and 50/50 republican/democrat breakdown. In theory, you should get 5 R's and 5 D's. But you create a minority district that will probably go 80% D. That means that the other 90% of the population in the other districts is 48 republican, 42 democrat. With those ratios, R's are going to win 7-8 of those 9 districts. That's how it happens.
My own preferred way to avoid the problem is proportional representation.

While minority - majority districts are one aspect of drawing districts it isn't the only factor. Gerrymandering occurs when minority's are "packed" into that district. A minority/majority district that gets 80% of the vote is gerrymandering.

And that's exactly what you have to do to comply with the voting rights legislation.

I disagree. The VRA gives minorities a chance to win elections not a guarantee. Gerrymandering has also been around a lot longer than the VRA.

(07-13-2016 09:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 08:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:13 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  He is an interesting suggestion I saw recently. Many of us are in states where the party in power (in my case the GOP) has stacked the deck to the point that there are many state house and senate races where one party or the other has absolutely no chance of winning the district. As a result sometimes there is no opposition as no one wishes to be the sacrificial lamb. The suggestion is that if you are in one of those districts you write in Gerry McGerrymander. The elections board would have to record those write in votes and in turn the media would possibly report this and bring attention to the practice of politicians picking their voters as opposed to voters picking their politicians. This could be a bipartisan effort.

Keep in mind that the major reason for gerrymandering is to create "safe" and "sure" minority districts to comply with the voting rights act. IIRC, the one really badly gerrymandered district in SC and the two really badly gerrymandered districts in NC are all minority districts. Once you gerrymander one or two, the rest have to be gerrymandered to some extent as well.
Let's say you have a state with 10 districts and 50/50 republican/democrat breakdown. In theory, you should get 5 R's and 5 D's. But you create a minority district that will probably go 80% D. That means that the other 90% of the population in the other districts is 48 republican, 42 democrat. With those ratios, R's are going to win 7-8 of those 9 districts. That's how it happens.
My own preferred way to avoid the problem is proportional representation.

While minority - majority districts are one aspect of drawing districts it isn't the only factor. Gerrymandering occurs when minority's are "packed" into that district. A minority/majority district that gets 80% of the vote is gerrymandering.

And that's exactly what you have to do to comply with the voting rights legislation.

I disagree. The VRA gives minorities a chance to win elections not a guarantee. Gerrymandering has also been around a lot longer than the VRA.

Term comes from 1812. Named after Mass. Democratic governor Gerry who designed districts shaped like a Salamander to benefit his party.

(07-13-2016 06:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 11:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  State legislature gerrymandering isn't dictated by creation of minority/majority districts. Of 170 seats in NC about 1/3 of this years races have no challenger. They are so overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat that the other party doesn't even run anyone. Remember NC is about as evenly split as it gets.

So evenly split that it was run by democrats for 140 years. Now that the GOP has been in control for 4 years gerrymandering is suddenly a problem.

Its just so ridiculous when Democrats complain about Republicans doing it. They of course, invented it. They have perfected it in California. And the worst of all time were in the South when they were desperately trying to hang onto control. In Texas in 1990, they tripled the number of voting precincts in Harris County (Houston) in order to accommodate their gerrymander. What the Republicans did in 2002 wasn't nearly as bad as the 1990 lines. Definitely favored Republicans, but not as much as the previous favored Democrats. The Democrats had a majority of the US Representatives despite not holding a single statewide office for nearly 10 years. They had districts strung out and meandering around like ink blots. I was in 3 different representative districts in the 90s because the Democrats kept losing lawsuits and making only minimal changes.

(07-13-2016 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 06:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 11:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  State legislature gerrymandering isn't dictated by creation of minority/majority districts. Of 170 seats in NC about 1/3 of this years races have no challenger. They are so overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat that the other party doesn't even run anyone. Remember NC is about as evenly split as it gets.

So evenly split that it was run by democrats for 140 years. Now that the GOP has been in control for 4 years gerrymandering is suddenly a problem.

Its just so ridiculous when Democrats complain about Republicans doing it. They of course, invented it. They have perfected it in California. And the worst of all time were in the South when they were desperately trying to hang onto control. In Texas in 1990, they tripled the number of voting precincts in Harris County (Houston) in order to accommodate their gerrymander. What the Republicans did in 2002 wasn't nearly as bad as the 1990 lines. Definitely favored Republicans, but not as much as the previous favored Democrats. The Democrats had a majority of the US Representatives despite not holding a single statewide office for nearly 10 years. They had districts strung out and meandering around like ink blots. I was in 3 different representative districts in the 90s because the Democrats kept losing lawsuits and making only minimal changes.

The Republicans in NC took it to a science after the last census. Both parties have done it whenever they take control of the state legislature. Both parties when out of power have complained and vowed that they would draw districts fairly when they took over. They never do. The thing is that nothing lasts forever and with demographic and situational changes what works for them now may flip flop down the road. We the citizens would all be better off creating compact, rational districts and let the voters play the role they are suppose to play.

(07-13-2016 09:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 08:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:13 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  He is an interesting suggestion I saw recently. Many of us are in states where the party in power (in my case the GOP) has stacked the deck to the point that there are many state house and senate races where one party or the other has absolutely no chance of winning the district. As a result sometimes there is no opposition as no one wishes to be the sacrificial lamb. The suggestion is that if you are in one of those districts you write in Gerry McGerrymander. The elections board would have to record those write in votes and in turn the media would possibly report this and bring attention to the practice of politicians picking their voters as opposed to voters picking their politicians. This could be a bipartisan effort.

Keep in mind that the major reason for gerrymandering is to create "safe" and "sure" minority districts to comply with the voting rights act. IIRC, the one really badly gerrymandered district in SC and the two really badly gerrymandered districts in NC are all minority districts. Once you gerrymander one or two, the rest have to be gerrymandered to some extent as well.
Let's say you have a state with 10 districts and 50/50 republican/democrat breakdown. In theory, you should get 5 R's and 5 D's. But you create a minority district that will probably go 80% D. That means that the other 90% of the population in the other districts is 48 republican, 42 democrat. With those ratios, R's are going to win 7-8 of those 9 districts. That's how it happens.
My own preferred way to avoid the problem is proportional representation.

While minority - majority districts are one aspect of drawing districts it isn't the only factor. Gerrymandering occurs when minority's are "packed" into that district. A minority/majority district that gets 80% of the vote is gerrymandering.

And that's exactly what you have to do to comply with the voting rights legislation.

I disagree. The VRA gives minorities a chance to win elections not a guarantee. Gerrymandering has also been around a lot longer than the VRA.

That's the mantra. But the reality is that if minorities don't win those districts, you can guarantee that you'll be defending a voting rights lawsuit. So you make sure they will win, and that means gerrymandering is the only way to be sure. Yes I know gerrymandering has been around a lot longer. That factoid has no relevance to how it is used today.

Simple test. Look at the worst gerrymandered districts. What percentage of them were set up to create minority seats? Probably pretty close to 100%. That should tell you all you need to know.

My solution? Proportional representation.

(07-13-2016 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 08:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Keep in mind that the major reason for gerrymandering is to create "safe" and "sure" minority districts to comply with the voting rights act. IIRC, the one really badly gerrymandered district in SC and the two really badly gerrymandered districts in NC are all minority districts. Once you gerrymander one or two, the rest have to be gerrymandered to some extent as well.
Let's say you have a state with 10 districts and 50/50 republican/democrat breakdown. In theory, you should get 5 R's and 5 D's. But you create a minority district that will probably go 80% D. That means that the other 90% of the population in the other districts is 48 republican, 42 democrat. With those ratios, R's are going to win 7-8 of those 9 districts. That's how it happens.
My own preferred way to avoid the problem is proportional representation.

While minority - majority districts are one aspect of drawing districts it isn't the only factor. Gerrymandering occurs when minority's are "packed" into that district. A minority/majority district that gets 80% of the vote is gerrymandering.

And that's exactly what you have to do to comply with the voting rights legislation.

I disagree. The VRA gives minorities a chance to win elections not a guarantee. Gerrymandering has also been around a lot longer than the VRA.

That's the mantra. But the reality is that if minorities don't win those districts, you can guarantee that you'll be defending a voting rights lawsuit. So you make sure they will win, and that means gerrymandering is the only way to be sure. Yes I know gerrymandering has been around a lot longer. That factoid has no relevance to how it is used today.

Simple test. Look at the worst gerrymandered districts. What percentage of them were set up to create minority seats? Probably pretty close to 100%. That should tell you all you need to know.

My solution? Proportional representation.

Most minority majority US congressional districts run in the 40-60% minority range.

NC congressional districts had to be redrawn this year after the court threw them out because of the abusive nature of the the gerrymandering. The redraws aren't much better but they are legal.

If you want to look at an extremely gerrymandered district that was created specifically to aid a party take a look at the 2nd NC Congressional district before it was thrown out. My own county was split into three parts, the east and west sides were in the 2nd and a narrow slitter in the center was placed in the 4th. The 4th isn't an M/M district but a heavily Democratic one as a result of gerrymandering. They packed three districts with Democrats so that the remaining districts would be strongly Republican. Politicians picking their voters rather than the other way around.

The 12th is one of the M/M districts and in the old map it was spread out across the Piedmont. The new map accomplishes the same thing and is much more compact. That is one of the big things about gerrymandering when dealing with M/M districts. It can be done with a reasonable compact area that makes sense or it can be done by picking off voters in a spread out, round about way. The former isn't gerrymandering, the latter is gerrymandering.

The gerrymanders have in general gotten worse because of computers. The parties are able to slice and dice and create the best possible district for themselves.

(07-13-2016 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  The gerrymanders have in general gotten worse because of computers. The parties are able to slice and dice and create the best possible district for themselves.

Yes they have. They could use to same computer programs to draw nice compact districts that create an fair playing field if they wanted to.

Proportional representation pretty much eliminates the political reasons for, and effectiveness of, gerrymandering. That's why it's my favored solution. It would also have what I think is a desirable effect of favoring the more moderate candidates in both parties because the ability to attract crossover votes becomes critical.

(07-13-2016 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Proportional representation pretty much eliminates the political reasons for, and effectiveness of, gerrymandering. That's why it's my favored solution. It would also have what I think is a desirable effect of favoring the more moderate candidates in both parties because the ability to attract crossover votes becomes critical.

But it also eliminates representation by district (at least districts of a mere half million or so).