Well, DUH! Federal judges find Texas gerrymandered maps on racial lines

[[DHT]Osiris]

Texas hasn't voted for a Democrat for the White House since 1976. (Jimmy Carter). The last state wide vote a Democrat won was in 1994, but i'm sure Democratic control of Texas is just around the corner for you guys.

If the GOP position in TX isn't threatened, why jerrymander at all?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[fskimospy]

If the GOP position in TX isn't threatened, why jerrymander at all?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

The presidential vote isn't affected by gerrymandering, just state level legislature and house seats. The reason to gerrymander is that if you can get an extra seat for nothing why not do it? (other than ethical and non-corrupt governance reasons, of course, haha.)

I mean Pennsylvania went to Democrats in six straight presidential elections and yet you had congressional maps that looked like this (in years Democrats won a majority of the congressional vote in PA).

In 2012 Democrats got 50.2% of the congressional vote and got 28% of the seats. The gerrymandering was so severe they actually increased their share of the vote from the previous election by about 3% yet lost two seats.

 

[Jhhnn]

The presidential vote isn't affected by gerrymandering, just state level legislature and house seats. The reason to gerrymander is that if you can get an extra seat for nothing why not do it? (other than ethical and non-corrupt governance reasons, of course, haha.)

I mean Pennsylvania went to Democrats in six straight presidential elections and yet you had congressional maps that looked like this (in years Democrats won a majority of the congressional vote in PA).

In 2012 Democrats got 50.2% of the congressional vote and got 28% of the seats. The gerrymandering was so severe they actually increased their share of the vote from the previous election by about 3% yet lost two seats.

Repub politicians abandoned the notion of democratic legitimacy long ago. They're entirely fine with ruling as the minority.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The presidential vote isn't affected by gerrymandering, just state level legislature and house seats. The reason to gerrymander is that if you can get an extra seat for nothing why not do it? (other than ethical and non-corrupt governance reasons, of course, haha.)

I mean Pennsylvania went to Democrats in six straight presidential elections and yet you had congressional maps that looked like this (in years Democrats won a majority of the congressional vote in PA).

In 2012 Democrats got 50.2% of the congressional vote and got 28% of the seats. The gerrymandering was so severe they actually increased their share of the vote from the previous election by about 3% yet lost two seats.

I wasn't referencing the presidential vote, just the GOP position as a whole.

 

[fskimospy]

I wasn't referencing the presidential vote, just the GOP position as a whole.

I agree, although our good friend taj was.

 

[glenn1]

'In common' does not mean 'same partisan ID'. It's actually exactly that thinking which is causing the problem.

One of the primary justifications for districts is that representatives could address local issues. I sincerely doubt people 250 miles away care about cleaning up a superfund site the same way people 5 miles away do, for example.

In local elections you may be correct. In state elections, debatable. In national elections probably not. Especially since DC politicians are mostly about dividing up who gets what spending, issues which don't have a particularly local impacts (like immigration reform or climate change), or "culture war" issues. I can almost guarantee that the SA city folks would be supporting things like gun control, public transit, etc. that would be vehemently opposed by the SA suburbs and McAllen voters alike. There is probably almost zero percent overlap in the wants and needs of the two populations, and I'd daresay it's more likely that SA City/NYC voters and SA suburbs/Seattle suburbs voters would have far, far, far more in common with each other than SA city and SA suburbs voters. The SA city and SA suburbs voters Venn Diagrams would probably be almost two completely separated circles.

 

[fskimospy]

In local elections you may be correct. In state elections, debatable. In national elections probably not.

What's your basis for this? As a real life example, I ran into a problem with my VA benefits a number of years ago that required me to visit my house rep's offices. Her #1 priority was the cleanup of the Gowanus Canal, something that would really only matter to local residents. (that's why I used the superfund example, in fact)

Especially since DC politicians are mostly about dividing up who gets what spending, issues which don't have a particularly local impacts (like immigration reform or climate change), or "culture war" issues.

Those are the issues publicized by the media, not what they mostly do. Federal issues have TONS of local impact and it's something your local reps are working on every day. Pick a random house member's webpage and go to it and you'll likely find a bunch of media releases, etc, talking about the local projects they are working on along with a bunch of links for local constituent services.

I can almost guarantee that the SA city folks would be supporting things like gun control, public transit, etc. that would be vehemently opposed by the SA suburbs and McAllen voters alike. There is probably almost zero percent overlap in the wants and needs of the two populations, and I'd daresay it's more likely that SA City/NYC voters and SA suburbs/Seattle suburbs voters would have far, far, far more in common with each other than SA city and SA suburbs voters. The SA city and SA suburbs voters Venn Diagrams would probably be almost two completely separated circles.

The overlap in the wants and needs of those two constituencies are not zero, they are probably extremely high. You, like the media, are focused on wedge issues and not the day to day things that 90% of people agree on. Gun control comes up once in a blue moon but things like having their highways fixed come up every day, they care about supporting business in the local area, things like that. Someone 250 miles away might share your opinion on gun control but probably doesn't give a shit if you lose your job because a factory 5 hours away from them closed. Which do you think most people find more important?

 

[HomerJS]

Just going to leave that there... The old eye test sure makes that one seem a bit funny.

Looks like a Klingon battle cruiser

 

[glenn1]

What's your basis for this? As a real life example, I ran into a problem with my VA benefits a number of years ago that required me to visit my house rep's offices. Her #1 priority was the cleanup of the Gowanus Canal, something that would really only matter to local residents. (that's why I used the superfund example, in fact)

You also live in a completely urban district whose constituents don't even uniformly agree with her #1 priority. Do you honestly think the suburban residents of Long Island would give a crap about the priorities of your districts voters? No, the voters of your district would agree with the other voters in NYC and almost not at all with the rest of the state, that was my entire point.

It's also not your state is a great model for gerrymandering either or that you have much standing to criticize. Hell, your own district is as bad as the "tortilla strip" shape that your fellows were complaining about.

Those are the issues publicized by the media, not what they mostly do. Federal issues have TONS of local impact and it's something your local reps are working on every day. Pick a random house member's webpage and go to it and you'll likely find a bunch of media releases, etc, talking about the local projects they are working on along with a bunch of links for local constituent services.

So you *honestly* believe that SA suburbs voters want to be lumped together with SA city voters so their rep can focus on spending for the city? Most of them moved out of the city into the suburbs for the very reason they didn't want their money going to pay for stuff to benefit others in the city.

The overlap in the wants and needs of those two constituencies are not zero, they are probably extremely high. You, like the media, are focused on wedge issues and not the day to day things that 90% of people agree on. Gun control comes up once in a blue moon but things like having their highways fixed come up every day, they care about supporting business in the local area, things like that. Someone 250 miles away might share your opinion on gun control but probably doesn't give a shit if you lose your job because a factory 5 hours away from them closed. Which do you think most people find more important?

You are delusional to think they overlap is high. And like a politician will really do anything about a factory closing anyway except put out a press release.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If the GOP position in TX isn't threatened, why jerrymander at all?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

The Supreme Court ruled that they didn't.

 

[fskimospy]

You also live in a completely urban district whose constituents don't even uniformly agree with her #1 priority. Do you honestly think the suburban residents of Long Island would give a crap about the priorities of your districts voters? No, the voters of your district would agree with the other voters in NYC and almost not at all with the rest of the state, that was my entire point.

You're inadvertently making my point for me. People a long way away in Long Island wouldn't share the same concern for the Gowanus Canal, no. I would bet a lot of money that the average resident of Long Island cares a lot more about issues happening in NYC than someone in Ithaca though, which was my entire point. Want to dispute that? If not, seems you're basically out of luck.

It's also not your state is a great model for gerrymandering either or that you have much standing to criticize. Hell, your own district is as bad as the "tortilla strip" shape that your fellows were complaining about.

It's not my district anymore and my point had nothing to do with which party was doing the gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is bad no matter who does it, it just so happens that in recent years Republicans have been doing far more of it, and it's far more egregious. So of course I have every standing to criticize, don't be silly.

So you *honestly* believe that SA suburbs voters want to be lumped together with SA city voters so their rep can focus on spending for the city? Most of them moved out of the city into the suburbs for the very reason they didn't want their money going to pay for stuff to benefit others in the city.

Why would their representative focus spending on the city? How did you come to this conclusion? Remember also that suburbs depend on the cities to exist, not the other way around. This is in fact another reason why the San Antonio suburbs should be very concerned with the health of the city as their economic livelihood often depends on it. This is far different than someone who lives 5 hours away, which once again proves my point. Remember, cities are net tax PAYERS, not recipients. States are generally dependent on them to provide the funds to make the other parts of the state run. People often believe the myth that non-city areas are paying for the cities to exist when it is precisely the opposite.

You are delusional to think they overlap is high. And like a politician will really do anything about a factory closing anyway except put out a press release.

You're just making things up now. Politicians do things to attract business to their districts all the time and people on here (likely you included) complain about it. It's delusional to think that economic interests aren't more important than guns to most people and it's delusional to think that as a general rule economic connections are going to be better 250 miles away than they are 5 miles away.

 

[Jhhnn]

You also live in a completely urban district whose constituents don't even uniformly agree with her #1 priority. Do you honestly think the suburban residents of Long Island would give a crap about the priorities of your districts voters? No, the voters of your district would agree with the other voters in NYC and almost not at all with the rest of the state, that was my entire point.

It's also not your state is a great model for gerrymandering either or that you have much standing to criticize. Hell, your own district is as bad as the "tortilla strip" shape that your fellows were complaining about.

So you *honestly* believe that SA suburbs voters want to be lumped together with SA city voters so their rep can focus on spending for the city? Most of them moved out of the city into the suburbs for the very reason they didn't want their money going to pay for stuff to benefit others in the city.



You are delusional to think they overlap is high. And like a politician will really do anything about a factory closing anyway except put out a press release.

Your "great model for gerrymandering" link about NY points out that it's the result of... a Repub legislature...

The particular highly urban district you use as an example is also ~10 miles across as opposed to the 250 mile long fajita strips in Texas...

 

[fskimospy]

Your "great model for gerrymandering" link about NY points out that it's the result of... a Repub legislature...

The particular highly urban district you use as an example is also ~10 miles across as opposed to the 250 mile long fajita strips in Texas...

New York didn't have a Republican legislature, it had a Republican Senate and a Democratic Assembly. This of course highlights gerrymandering's cousin, geographic concentration.

 

[glenn1]

You're inadvertently making my point for me. People a long way away in Long Island wouldn't share the same concern for the Gowanus Canal, no. I would bet a lot of money that the average resident of Long Island cares a lot more about issues happening in NYC than someone in Ithaca though, which was my entire point. Want to dispute that? If not, seems you're basically out of luck.



It's not my district anymore and my point had nothing to do with which party was doing the gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is bad no matter who does it, it just so happens that in recent years Republicans have been doing far more of it, and it's far more egregious. So of course I have every standing to criticize, don't be silly.



Why would their representative focus spending on the city? How did you come to this conclusion? Remember also that suburbs depend on the cities to exist, not the other way around. This is in fact another reason why the San Antonio suburbs should be very concerned with the health of the city as their economic livelihood often depends on it. This is far different than someone who lives 5 hours away, which once again proves my point. Remember, cities are net tax PAYERS, not recipients. States are generally dependent on them to provide the funds to make the other parts of the state run. People often believe the myth that non-city areas are paying for the cities to exist when it is precisely the opposite. The people of Ithaca are being disenfranchised by having their will clumped together with those in more suburban areas who are diametrically opposed to what they want. Ithaca city voters paired with Brooklyn voters would be the natural and appropriate alignment regardless of distance. Hell, Ithaca would be better off being paired with voters from Seattle than its own suburbs.



You're just making things up now. Politicians do things to attract business to their districts all the time and people on here (likely you included) complain about it. It's delusional to think that economic interests aren't more important than guns to most people and it's delusional to think that as a general rule economic connections are going to be better 250 miles away than they are 5 miles away.

And yet somehow the residents of Ithaca (population density 5,360.9/sq mile) voted for Clinton in almost identical numbers to Brooklyn and Suffolk County (Long Island) voted 20-25% more for Trump and GOP. And US District 7 (Brooklyn) was at 91% Dem vs. 61% GOP for District 24 where Ithaca is located which again mirrors the 58% for District 1 (Long Island). So evidently the actual votes say you are 100% absolutely completely wrong even with the exact examples you gave. Your anecdote of Superfund site or not, there is a net 59% percent swing between urban voters in high density areas and suburban low density area voters. Suburban SA voters and SA City voters are almost guaranteed to be 100% completely mortal enemies to the others political aims with the occasional point of agreement on spending.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet somehow the residents of Ithaca (population density 5,360.9/sq mile) voted for Clinton in almost identical numbers to Brooklyn and Suffolk County (Long Island) voted 20-25% more for Trump and GOP. And US District 7 (Brooklyn) was at 91% Dem vs. 61% GOP for District 24 where Ithaca is located which again mirrors the 58% for District 1 (Long Island). So evidently the actual votes say you are 100% absolutely completely wrong even with the exact examples you gave. Your anecdote of Superfund site or not, there is a net 59% percent swing between urban voters in high density areas and suburban low density area voters. Suburban SA voters and SA City voters are almost guaranteed to be 100% completely mortal enemies to the others political aims with the occasional point of agreement on spending.

Lol, you aren't paying attention and need to go back and read my first post, which is that common interests doesn't equal party ID. You've come full circular argument!

1) Glenn: 'voters share common interests because they vote for the same person for president'

2) fskimo: 'common interests encompass a lot more than political party, as shown by my example'

3) Glenn: 'people in Long Island don't care about local issues in NYC so they don't share common interests'

4) fskimo: 'they share a lot more common interest in what happens in NYC than people in Ithaca'

5) Glenn: 'no they don't, because they voted for the same person for president.'

6) fskimo: /facepalm

 

[trenchfoot]

Repub politicians abandoned the notion of democratic legitimacy long ago. They're entirely fine with ruling as the minority.

There has to be some kind of tipping point in this regard and I'd sure like to be around when that happens.

Those +3 million voters who gave Hillary a win in the popular vote category would surely like to see this wholly undemocratic form of gov't gone nice and proper. This disparity between what the majority wants and what the Electoral College gives the nation will go on despite the fact that the Repubs are going to see an ever increasing gap in this regard.

What happens when this gap appears to be so glaring, so egregious that some epic change in the voting process needs to be instituted is what I am waiting for.

 

[MrPickins]

I can almost guarantee that the SA city folks would be supporting things like gun control, public transit, etc. that would be vehemently opposed by the SA suburbs and McAllen voters alike.

What good is an "almost guarantee"?

Seriously, though. You realize that the Rio Grande Valley is largely blue, right?

 

[fskimospy]

There has to be some kind of tipping point in this regard and I'd sure like to be around when that happens.

Those +3 million voters who gave Hillary a win in the popular vote category would surely like to see this wholly undemocratic form of gov't gone nice and proper. This disparity between what the majority wants and what the Electoral College gives the nation will go on despite the fact that the Repubs are going to see an ever increasing gap in this regard.

What happens when this gap appears to be so glaring, so egregious that some epic change in the voting process needs to be instituted is what I am waiting for.

It will be interesting to see how far it can be pushed. There's a chance that Democrats could win the congressional vote by almost ten points -a blowout- and still not get a house majority. At some point you get a legitimacy problem.

 

[glenn1]

Lol, you aren't paying attention and need to go back and read my first post, which is that common interests doesn't equal party ID. You've come full circular argument!

1) Glenn: 'voters share common interests because they vote for the same person for president'

2) fskimo: 'common interests encompass a lot more than political party, as shown by my example'

3) Glenn: 'people in Long Island don't care about local issues in NYC so they don't share common interests'

4) fskimo: 'they share a lot more common interest in what happens in NYC than people in Ithaca'

5) Glenn: 'no they don't, because they voted for the same person for president.'

6) fskimo: /facepalm

You are not stupid so I know you're simply being obtuse here. There is an extremely high correlation of voter behavior to the population density of where they live which completely overwhelms basically every other factor including "common local interests." Voters evidently don't give a damn that you think they should want to vote for the same people as lives in a nearby area because of proximity, actual freaking votes show they do not. This is another example of the dense "what's the matter with Kansas" kinda thinking which allows you to declare others wrong for not voting the way you believe they should. It would be helpful if you admitted your error and simple reality that suburban and rural voters have immeasurably more interests in common regardless of distance than they do with urban voters living a short distance away. This is about as clear a scatter plot as you could ever want to see.

 

[Jhhnn]

At some point you get a legitimacy problem.

We already have it. Repubs don't mind one little bit. MAGA!

 

[fskimospy]

What good is an "almost guarantee"?

Seriously, though. You realize that the Rio Grande Valley is largely blue, right?

It's kind of a ridiculous distinction anyway. If you think that how an area votes for president is how you should determine districts then the far more obvious answer is to just eliminate districts altogether and proportionally award house members based on a popular vote. Since location doesn't matter, only partisan voting ID, this should make perfect sense.

You will never, ever see conservatives go for this though as that means giving up the geographic conservative bias they have come to heavily depend on.

 

[fskimospy]

You are not stupid so I know you're simply being obtuse here. There is an extremely high correlation of voter behavior to the population density of where they live which completely overwhelms basically every other factor including "common local interests." Voters evidently don't give a damn that you think they should want to vote for the same people as lives in a nearby area because of proximity, actual freaking votes show they do not. This is another example of the dense "what's the matter with Kansas" kinda thinking which allows you to declare others wrong for not voting the way you believe they should. It would be helpful if you admitted your error and simple reality that suburban and rural voters have immeasurably more interests in common regardless of distance than they do with urban voters living a short distance away. This is about as clear a scatter plot as you could ever want to see.

So your answer to me pointing out your circular reasoning is to repeat the same circular reasoning. This is not helpful. By your logic we should chop off Red Hook and Greenwood and replace them with the city center in Buffalo because they aren't particularly dense parts of the district, lol. Repeat after me: common interests encompass more than party ID.

Anyway even if you don't agree then refer to a previous post of mine here as it shows you haven't thought your argument through to the logical conclusion. If how people vote for president is the determining factor in if they share common interests and it's more valid to group people 250 miles apart than it is to group people 5 miles apart the obvious logical conclusion is to eliminate congressional districts entirely as they serve no purpose other than to serve as proxies for people grouped by political party. If that's the case then the fairest and most accurate way is to simply take a statewide vote and proportionally provision seats that way.

You will never support this of course as this would lead to a massive loss of seats for conservatives, but it is the logical outcome of your argument. Either geographic proximity matters or it doesn't. If it does, grouping people hundreds of miles apart makes no sense. If it doesn't, districts make no sense. So Glenn, I'm 100% on board with your thesis, let's eliminate districts! Incoming Democratic majority in Congress and quite a few statehouses!

 

[Jhhnn]

You are not stupid so I know you're simply being obtuse here. There is an extremely high correlation of voter behavior to the population density of where they live which completely overwhelms basically every other factor including "common local interests." Voters evidently don't give a damn that you think they should want to vote for the same people as lives in a nearby area because of proximity, actual freaking votes show they do not. This is another example of the dense "what's the matter with Kansas" kinda thinking which allows you to declare others wrong for not voting the way you believe they should. It would be helpful if you admitted your error and simple reality that suburban and rural voters have immeasurably more interests in common regardless of distance than they do with urban voters living a short distance away. This is about as clear a scatter plot as you could ever want to see.

If suburbanites have more in common with rural America, why are the suburbs always concentrated around urban cores?

 

[glenn1]

So your answer to me pointing out your circular reasoning is to repeat the same circular reasoning. This is not helpful. By your logic we should chop off Red Hook and Greenwood and replace them with the city center in Buffalo because they aren't particularly dense parts of the district, lol. Repeat after me: common interests encompass more than party ID.

Anyway even if you don't agree then refer to a previous post of mine here as it shows you haven't thought your argument through to the logical conclusion. If how people vote for president is the determining factor in if they share common interests and it's more valid to group people 250 miles apart than it is to group people 5 miles apart the obvious logical conclusion is to eliminate congressional districts entirely as they serve no purpose other than to serve as proxies for people grouped by political party. If that's the case then the fairest and most accurate way is to simply take a statewide vote and proportionally provision seats that way.

You will never support this of course as this would lead to a massive loss of seats for conservatives, but it is the logical outcome of your argument. Either geographic proximity matters or it doesn't. If it does, grouping people hundreds of miles apart makes no sense. If it doesn't, districts make no sense. So Glenn, I'm 100% on board with your thesis, let's eliminate districts! Incoming Democratic majority in Congress and quite a few statehouses!

Why do you think I would oppose that plan? Hell, I'd not only welcome it but would scale it to minimize local, parochial concerns to the greatest extent possible. I'd one-up your proposal and apportion the seats at a national level rather than state. The mere fact that your representative's biggest concern is some hyperlocal canal cleanup is exactly what's wrong with our government now. Every representative should run on a platform broad enough to gain support from a wide range of constituents including those 250 miles away just as much as the one 250 feet away. Keep "districts" as a bookkeeping function if you want (to make maintaining voter rolls easier, etc) but make all representatives "at large" to the biggest extent possible. Maybe then your Rep will give a shit about something bigger than a canal cleanup, and some GOP rep in Texas or wherever will give a shit about something other than same sex marriage in another state that isn't even theirs. The current system not only encourages extremely fringe political positions get elected but also protects them from effective challenge from more moderate and mainstream politicians who would more accurately reflect the will of the average voter. If that means we get a "Democratic" government then so be it but at least it will be one more reflective of the will of the voters than under the current system where half the country wants to secede every four years based on the outcome of the POTUS race.

 

[glenn1]

If suburbanites have more in common with rural America, why are the suburbs always concentrated around urban cores?

If Jhhnn had more in common with intelligent people, why are Jhhnn's posts always concentrated around stupidity?