Blue Wave 2018

[Ivytalk]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... map-471851

All this does, though, is to put the power of the gerrymander into the hands of the elected PA Supreme Court. This time, it's Democrats that control the PA Supreme Court and they drew the map, while more compact, but with the details of where the lines were to benefit Democrats (municipalities, counties, were split in such ways to ensure this). If the GOP gets control of the PA Supreme Court, then they can do the same too. Suppose it makes it more simple to gerrymander, since now you just need to win 4 of the 7 seats, rather than the 253 seats or so in the PA General Assembly (both houses) but it does make the PA Supreme Court a hugely political battleground now. Doesn't necessarily move the needle one way or the other on gerrymandering per se, just changes the location where the parties gerrymander from.

Elected judges are a travesty of a mockery of a sham. I don’t care what party they belong to.

[GannonFan]

All this does, though, is to put the power of the gerrymander into the hands of the elected PA Supreme Court. This time, it's Democrats that control the PA Supreme Court and they drew the map, while more compact, but with the details of where the lines were to benefit Democrats (municipalities, counties, were split in such ways to ensure this). If the GOP gets control of the PA Supreme Court, then they can do the same too. Suppose it makes it more simple to gerrymander, since now you just need to win 4 of the 7 seats, rather than the 253 seats or so in the PA General Assembly (both houses) but it does make the PA Supreme Court a hugely political battleground now. Doesn't necessarily move the needle one way or the other on gerrymandering per se, just changes the location where the parties gerrymander from.

Elected judges are a travesty of a mockery of a sham. I don’t care what party they belong to.

I agree - I feel weird voting on judges, or the retaining of judges (in PA we vote on retaining judges, even the lower level one) every time we go vote. Other than knowing the party they belong to, or if they have a famous name (Ed Rendell's wife was a judge, and the judge who presided over the ad hoc court in the bowels of Veteran's Stadium, Seamus McCaffery, was another), voters are just guessing. PA government has never been considered to be highly ethical, going back all the way actually, so it's just another remnant of bad government in PA that we elect judges like this. Political entrenchment of power, by both Democrats and Republicans, is a trademark of PA government, and this is just another chapter in that sordid history.

[Ivytalk]

Elected judges are a travesty of a mockery of a sham. I don’t care what party they belong to.

I agree - I feel weird voting on judges, or the retaining of judges (in PA we vote on retaining judges, even the lower level one) every time we go vote. Other than knowing the party they belong to, or if they have a famous name (Ed Rendell's wife was a judge, and the judge who presided over the ad hoc court in the bowels of Veteran's Stadium, Seamus McCaffery, was another), voters are just guessing. PA government has never been considered to be highly ethical, going back all the way actually, so it's just another remnant of bad government in PA that we elect judges like this. Political entrenchment of power, by both Democrats and Republicans, is a trademark of PA government, and this is just another chapter in that sordid history.

Ed Rendell’s ex-wife is a federal judge. That’s a big difference. But I take your point about PA politics.

[Skjellyfetti]

Do you think the map is more gerrymandered or less gerrymandered?



I think it's pretty clearly a better map. But, I'd love to hear your arguments otherwise.

And, I'd say the same thing if it was Maryland or another state gerrymandered for Democrats.

[CID1990]

Clearly a better map?

Because it has more pleasing shapes or less clashing colors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Compact districts.

Again - do you think it is more gerrymandered?

[CID1990]

Compact districts.

Again - do you think it is more gerrymandered?

How do compact districts make it clearly a better map, professor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Compact districts.

Again - do you think it is more gerrymandered?

How do compact districts make it clearly a better map, professor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ask SCOTUS.

Equal population. Compact. Contiguous.

The previous map has districts with equal populations and contiguous districts - but, they aren't as compact.

New map is more compact.

You're welcome for the lesson. Hit me up anytime.

[BDKJMU]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... map-471851

All this does, though, is to put the power of the gerrymander into the hands of the elected PA Supreme Court. This time, it's Democrats that control the PA Supreme Court and they drew the map, while more compact, but with the details of where the lines were to benefit Democrats (municipalities, counties, were split in such ways to ensure this). If the GOP gets control of the PA Supreme Court, then they can do the same too. Suppose it makes it more simple to gerrymander, since now you just need to win 4 of the 7 seats, rather than the 253 seats or so in the PA General Assembly (both houses) but it does make the PA Supreme Court a hugely political battleground now. Doesn't necessarily move the needle one way or the other on gerrymandering per se, just changes the location where the parties gerrymander from.

Yep. Democrat judges on the PA Supreme Ct usurping their authority to redraw the maps had nothing to do with gerrymandering. That was just the simple excuse. They did it for for one reason only- politics- the old map hurt democrats. And they drew one with the goal of helping democrats. They're the ones who opened this pandora's box, so if/when republicans sometime in the future get control of the state SC, a republican majority in the legislature (as is now) could redraw the same or similar map as the prior, and a conk controlled state SC they could simply say the old map or similar is constitutional.

[dbackjon]

All this does, though, is to put the power of the gerrymander into the hands of the elected PA Supreme Court. This time, it's Democrats that control the PA Supreme Court and they drew the map, while more compact, but with the details of where the lines were to benefit Democrats (municipalities, counties, were split in such ways to ensure this). If the GOP gets control of the PA Supreme Court, then they can do the same too. Suppose it makes it more simple to gerrymander, since now you just need to win 4 of the 7 seats, rather than the 253 seats or so in the PA General Assembly (both houses) but it does make the PA Supreme Court a hugely political battleground now. Doesn't necessarily move the needle one way or the other on gerrymandering per se, just changes the location where the parties gerrymander from.

Yep. Democrat judges on the PA Supreme Ct usurping their authority to redraw the maps had nothing to do with gerrymandering. That was just the simple excuse. They did it for for one reason only- politics- the old map hurt democrats. They're the ones who opened this pandora's box, so if/when republicans sometime in the future get control of the state SC, a republican majority in the legislature (as is now) could redraw the same or similar map as the prior, and a conk controlled state SC they could simply say the old map or similar is constitutional.

Outside of Maryland, the GOP has been experts at Gerrymandering. You are whining because the PSC drew a map that was balanced. According to you and the rest of the GOP, if it isn't skewed to the GOP, it is not fair. The GOP has been going down this path hard for the last decade or so - laughable that you blame the Dems for opening a Pandora's Box. If every state was drawn fairly, without regards for political parties, the Democrats would be in control of the House

[Skjellyfetti]

the maps had nothing to do with gerrymandering

the old map hurt democrats

Uhhhhh.

If a map "hurts" a political party - it's gerrymandering.

For example: in 2012 - the vote was fairly close to a 50/50 split between Rs and Ds in Congressional Elections. Democrats won a slight plurality.

Republicans won 13 seats. Democrats won 5.

[BDKJMU]

Yep. Democrat judges on the PA Supreme Ct usurping their authority to redraw the maps had nothing to do with gerrymandering. That was just the simple excuse. They did it for for one reason only- politics- the old map hurt democrats. They're the ones who opened this pandora's box, so if/when republicans sometime in the future get control of the state SC, a republican majority in the legislature (as is now) could redraw the same or similar map as the prior, and a conk controlled state SC they could simply say the old map or similar is constitutional.

Outside of Maryland, the GOP has been experts at Gerrymandering. You are whining because the PSC drew a map that was balanced. According to you and the rest of the GOP, if it isn't skewed to the GOP, it is not fair. The GOP has been going down this path hard for the last decade or so - laughable that you blame the Dems for opening a Pandora's Box. If every state was drawn fairly, without regards for political parties, the Democrats would be in control of the House

You think MD is the only state drawn to benefit democrats.. .. ...

Its NOT the courts role to draw congressional maps. So yes the democrat controlled PSC opened a pandora's box by doing this. I'll grant they did a good job of making it harder to attack/easier to defend, but if you think that map wasn't specifically drawn with benefiting democrats in mind, then you really are

[CID1990]

How do compact districts make it clearly a better map, professor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ask SCOTUS.

Equal population. Compact. Contiguous.

The previous map has districts with equal populations and contiguous districts - but, they aren't as compact.

New map is more compact.

You're welcome for the lesson. Hit me up anytime.

I see

So just by looking at the shape and size of a map's districts, one can tell if it is gerrymandered or not

interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah, exactly. I have no idea exactly how this would effect R v. D numbers in elections.

But, it's more compact and quite clearly a better map.

It's like porn vs. art. You know it when you see it.

[Ivytalk]

Yeah, exactly. I have no idea exactly how this would effect R v. D numbers in elections.

But, it's more compact and quite clearly a better map.

It's like porn vs. art. You know it when you see it.

Frankly, Jelly, I don’t think you know either one.

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah, exactly. I have no idea exactly how this would effect R v. D numbers in elections.

But, it's more compact and quite clearly a better map.

It's like porn vs. art. You know it when you see it.

Frankly, Jelly, I don’t think you know either one.

Whether he knows porn and art or not I think you can look at those two maps and tell which one is gerrymandered and which is not.

[Skjellyfetti]

Frankly, Jelly, I don’t think you know either one.

I do know porn.

Art is debatable.

[Ivytalk]

Frankly, Jelly, I don’t think you know either one.

Whether he knows porn and art or not I think you can look at those two maps and tell which one is gerrymandered and which is not.

You’re just turning into a Donk drama queen.

The upper one is Jackson Pollock. The lower one is Piet Mondrian.

Philistine.

[Ivytalk]

Frankly, Jelly, I don’t think you know either one.

I do know porn.

Art is debatable.

OK, then!

[CID1990]

Frankly, Jelly, I don’t think you know either one.

Whether he knows porn and art or not I think you can look at those two maps and tell which one is gerrymandered and which is not.

The map suggests it is gerrymandered- but just looking at the shape and size of a district is not anywhere near definitive without population and demographic data.

A truly fair districting map would result in districts that have roughly similar population sizes and demographic makeups. You cannot make that determination by looking at the map. In fact, in most states, a fair district map might look a lot more like NC's current map rather than the kindergarten drawing Jelly likes to post all the time.

Who would like to make an argument against having equal demographic makeups in political districting? I'm not saying that current maps in NC or PA currently have this, BTW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Whether he knows porn and art or not I think you can look at those two maps and tell which one is gerrymandered and which is not.

The map suggests it is gerrymandered- but just looking at the shape and size of a district is not anywhere near definitive without population and demographic data.

A truly fair districting map would result in districts that have roughly similar population sizes and demographic makeups. You cannot make that determination by looking at the map. In fact, in most states, a fair district map might look a lot more like NC's current map rather than the kindergarten drawing Jelly likes to post all the time.

Who would like to make an argument against having equal demographic makeups in political districting? I'm not saying that current maps in NC or PA currently have this, BTW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never thought of trying to make sure of "equal" demographics makeups as a factor. I've always thought of it in terms of area and population.

[Ivytalk]

Whether he knows porn and art or not I think you can look at those two maps and tell which one is gerrymandered and which is not.

The map suggests it is gerrymandered- but just looking at the shape and size of a district is not anywhere near definitive without population and demographic data.

A truly fair districting map would result in districts that have roughly similar population sizes and demographic makeups. You cannot make that determination by looking at the map. In fact, in most states, a fair district map might look a lot more like NC's current map rather than the kindergarten drawing Jelly likes to post all the time.

Who would like to make an argument against having equal demographic makeups in political districting? I'm not saying that current maps in NC or PA currently have this, BTW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK. If every district is 61% white, 18% Hispanic, 13% Black, 6% Asian, and 2% other, that seems fair.

[Skjellyfetti]

A truly fair districting map would result in districts that have roughly similar population sizes and demographic makeups

They do have the same populations sizes.

Demographic makeups? Who gives a shit? Agree?

Equal population. Compact. Contiguous.

[houndawg]

I'm pro-life and I'm pretty libertarian

If you're pro-life then I'm pro-life.

You just stated your position earlier and I agreed with it. It sounded closer to pro-choice to me. But, I dunno.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[CID1990]

A truly fair districting map would result in districts that have roughly similar population sizes and demographic makeups

They do have the same populations sizes.

Demographic makeups? Who gives a ****? Agree?

Equal population. Compact. Contiguous.

Which brings me back to my original question which you have clumsily avoided-

How can you tell anything about population from looking at a political map with straight line districts?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk