US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[The Black Forrest]

What is the issue with proportional?
It's perfectly legal and according to what you linked seems even fairer than both compact methods.

But i guess you didn't really say what you meant by "Fair".

Proportional works too. It is perfectly fair. But everyone seems stuck on using single member districts.

And I really only consider 100% population based algorithms fair when drawing districts.

Question: If the 538 showed blue mainly, would you support it?

[Genivaria]

The options:

1) Fair algorithm map
2) GOP favored gerrymandering
3) Democrat favored gerrymandering


I would pick option 1. BUT, option 1 is not currently legal, so I'm stuck with options 2 and 3. Which do I pick?

Easy choice.

Suddenly I find it harder to hate your position, fair point.

[Arlenton]

Proportional works too. It is perfectly fair. But everyone seems stuck on using single member districts.

And I really only consider 100% population based algorithms fair when drawing districts.

Question: If the 538 showed blue mainly, would you support it?

What do you mean?

Do you mean if the algorithm method resulted in a Democratic majority? Then yeah, because that would be a fair loss IMO.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Talked to Representative Culver (Pennsylvania Representative) a few days ago at a Legislative Breakfast and she told the group I was with that the Republicans in the PA Senate are going to try and appeal the PA Supreme Court decision again. Republicans in PA really don't want to give their districts up.

[Uiiop]

What is the issue with proportional?
It's perfectly legal and according to what you linked seems even fairer than both compact methods.

But i guess you didn't really say what you meant by "Fair".

Proportional works too. It is perfectly fair. But everyone seems stuck on using single member districts.

And I really only consider 100% population based algorithms fair when drawing districts.

Well according to 538's own description the compacts are based on distance from district centers not population.
One might argue that the goal is related to population but that's not quite what "Based" sounds like.

Tbf they use different descriptors for each but treat them as similar nonetheless so i may just be confuzzled.

[The Black Forrest]

Question: If the 538 showed blue mainly, would you support it?

What do you mean?

Do you mean if the algorithm method resulted in a Democratic majority? Then yeah, because that would be a fair loss IMO.

Ok.

I only ask because I hear "fair" from time to time and it usually means it's fair as long as it favors my areas.

[Arlenton]

Proportional works too. It is perfectly fair. But everyone seems stuck on using single member districts.

And I really only consider 100% population based algorithms fair when drawing districts.

Well according to 538's own description the compacts are based on distance from district centers not population.
One might argue that the goal is related to population but that's not quite what "Based" sounds like.

Close enough for me.

[Myrensis]

The options:

1) Fair algorithm map
2) GOP favored gerrymandering
3) Democrat favored gerrymandering


I would pick option 1. BUT, option 1 is not currently legal, so I'm stuck with options 2 and 3. Which do I pick?

Easy choice.

Suddenly I find it harder to hate your position, fair point.

It's still a silly position, because it assumes that 'grossly disproportionate warping of the districts to favor whichever party gets to do it" is the only possible option outside of the fair algorithm.

When, hey look, even though it was ...dun dun dun, Democrats in the PA Supreme Court who installed the new map, it actually still slightly favors Republicans while better reflecting the voter composition of PA, as opposed to the current GOP made map where 50% of the states population is represented by 25% of it's Congressional delegation.

It's like it is actually possible to create maps that are less horribly partisan and warped even without the holy and pure fair algorithm.

[Arlenton]

What do you mean?

Do you mean if the algorithm method resulted in a Democratic majority? Then yeah, because that would be a fair loss IMO.

Ok.

I only ask because I hear "fair" from time to time and it usually means it's fair as long as it favors my areas.

My position is that I support it begin fair as in 538's algorithm drawn district plan, which I personally consider completely fair. I would also support any other method that I consider at least equally fair, like proportional representation.

But, because neither of those things look like they are going to happen and we are stuck with gerrymandering, I personally feel like there is no other choice than to gerrymander districts in our favor. Like if there is going to be gerrymandering no matter what, I'd rather it benefit my side as much as possible.

[Arlenton]

Suddenly I find it harder to hate your position, fair point.

It's still a silly position, because it assumes that 'grossly disproportionate warping of the districts to favor whichever party gets to do it" is the only possible option outside of the fair algorithm.

When, hey look, even though it was ...dun dun dun, Democrats in the PA Supreme Court who installed the new map, it actually still slightly favors Republicans while better reflecting the voter composition of PA, as opposed to the current GOP made map where 50% of the states population is represented by 25% of it's Congressional delegation.

It's like it is actually possible to create maps that are less horribly partisan and warped even without the holy and pure fair algorithm.

If cheating is legal, why cheat "just a little"? That's just dumb.

[San Lumen]

Talked to Representative Culver (Pennsylvania Representative) a few days ago at a Legislative Breakfast and she told the group I was with that the Republicans in the PA Senate are going to try and appeal the PA Supreme Court decision again. Republicans in PA really don't want to give their districts up.

And they will be smacked down in court yet again. The Supreme Court denied a stay once and I dont see why they wouldn't this time. Impeachment will not fly and will backfire massively especially at the state level. The Attorney General can and should bring obstruction of justice charge against any legislator that attempts them and openly threaten any legislator that proposes it.

[Guy]

Algorithm-drawn maps are terrible. They split communities of interest left and right. A representative needs to be able to care for the needs of their community, not a mish-mash that will grab a bit from A and a bit from B.

It is very possible to get rid of gerrymandering without resorting to algorithms. Every other Western democracy with districts does it. Quite a few US states do it.

The PA court-drawn map isn't a Democratic gerrymander. It adheres to non-partisan, fair redistricting . What it also does it ensure that parties are compensated for getting more votes by getting more seats at equivalent rates. That does not detract from it being a non-gerrymandered map: Either it makes the map better (if you believe in partisan fairness as a redistricting objective), or it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't make it worse.

[Telconi]

Algorithm-drawn maps are terrible. They split communities of interest left and right. A representative needs to be able to care for the needs of their community, not a mish-mash that will grab a bit from A and a bit from B.

It is very possible to get rid of gerrymandering without resorting to algorithms. Every other Western democracy with districts does it. Quite a few US states do it.

The PA court-drawn map isn't a Democratic gerrymander. It adheres to non-partisan, fair redistricting . What it also does it ensure that parties are compensated for getting more votes by getting more seats at equivalent rates. That does not detract from it being a non-gerrymandered map: Either it makes the map better (if you believe in partisan fairness as a redistricting objective), or it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't make it worse.

The idea that a 'community' however you define that, must be lumped together is silly, what good is keeping me entire town in a district as opposed to splitting it?

[Guy]

Algorithm-drawn maps are terrible. They split communities of interest left and right. A representative needs to be able to care for the needs of their community, not a mish-mash that will grab a bit from A and a bit from B.

It is very possible to get rid of gerrymandering without resorting to algorithms. Every other Western democracy with districts does it. Quite a few US states do it.

The PA court-drawn map isn't a Democratic gerrymander. It adheres to non-partisan, fair redistricting . What it also does it ensure that parties are compensated for getting more votes by getting more seats at equivalent rates. That does not detract from it being a non-gerrymandered map: Either it makes the map better (if you believe in partisan fairness as a redistricting objective), or it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't make it worse.

The idea that a 'community' however you define that, must be lumped together is silly, what good is keeping me entire town in a district as opposed to splitting it?

The underlying assumption behind geographically-defined voting districts (which, in one form or another, exist in almost every democracy) is that people who live near each other have shared interests, and would be better represented by assigning someone for their particular area. Undoubtedly, part of the reason is that people who live in the same neighbourhood, towns etc share some common concerns for the welfare of that area - anything from economic development, infrastructure, public spending, etc.

Otherwise, you'd just have nationwide PR, presumably.

[Arlenton]

Algorithm-drawn maps are terrible. They split communities of interest left and right. A representative needs to be able to care for the needs of their community, not a mish-mash that will grab a bit from A and a bit from B.

It is very possible to get rid of gerrymandering without resorting to algorithms. Every other Western democracy with districts does it. Quite a few US states do it.

The PA court-drawn map isn't a Democratic gerrymander. It adheres to non-partisan, fair redistricting . What it also does it ensure that parties are compensated for getting more votes by getting more seats at equivalent rates. That does not detract from it being a non-gerrymandered map: Either it makes the map better (if you believe in partisan fairness as a redistricting objective), or it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't make it worse.

Pretty much an excuse to gerrymander. Nice try though.

[Collatis]

The idea that a ‘community’ however you define that, must be lumped together is silly, what good is keeping me entire town in a district as opposed to splitting it?

The underlying assumption behind geographically-defined voting districts (which, in one form or another, exist in almost every democracy) is that people who live near each other have shared interests, and would be better represented by assigning someone for their particular area. Undoubtedly, part of the reason is that people who live in the same neighbourhood, towns etc share some common concerns for the welfare of that area - anything from economic development, infrastructure, public spending, etc.

Otherwise, you’d just have nationwide PR, presumably.

Completely agree.

[Collatis]

I wish here in Texas the entirely Republican state supreme court drew the districts. I’m sure it’d be totally fair.

State supreme courts in Republican states ranging from Mississippi to Kansas have drawn mostly fair maps. Much like how the court in Pennsylvania has drawn one.

From FiveThirtyEight, Pennsylvania’s New Map Helps Democrats. But It’s Not A Democratic Gerrymander.

[San Lumen]

Algorithm-drawn maps are terrible. They split communities of interest left and right. A representative needs to be able to care for the needs of their community, not a mish-mash that will grab a bit from A and a bit from B.

It is very possible to get rid of gerrymandering without resorting to algorithms. Every other Western democracy with districts does it. Quite a few US states do it.

The PA court-drawn map isn't a Democratic gerrymander. It adheres to non-partisan, fair redistricting . What it also does it ensure that parties are compensated for getting more votes by getting more seats at equivalent rates. That does not detract from it being a non-gerrymandered map: Either it makes the map better (if you believe in partisan fairness as a redistricting objective), or it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't make it worse.

The idea that a 'community' however you define that, must be lumped together is silly, what good is keeping me entire town in a district as opposed to splitting it?

Because you could for example take a majority black community and split between districts to dilute their voting power.

[Irona]

Which year will Texas go blue? Republicans are just giving democrats votes with anti-Latin rhetoric

[San Lumen]

Which year will Texas go blue? Republicans are just giving democrats votes with anti-Latin rhetoric

probably mid 2020s but it Latinos/Hispanics voted in massive numbers it could turn the state before that. El Paso county alone could flip the state if turnout in the county wasn't so low.

[Petrasylvania]

Which year will Texas go blue? Republicans are just giving democrats votes with anti-Latin rhetoric

probably mid 2020s but it Latinos/Hispanics voted in massive numbers it could turn the state before that. El Paso county alone could flip the state if turnout in the county wasn't so low.

When have the Republicans ever won with high turnout?

[UED]

probably mid 2020s but it Latinos/Hispanics voted in massive numbers it could turn the state before that. El Paso county alone could flip the state if turnout in the county wasn't so low.

When have the Republicans ever won with high turnout?

2004 actually, but yea Republicans generally dont benefit from higher turnout rates.

[San Lumen]

probably mid 2020s but it Latinos/Hispanics voted in massive numbers it could turn the state before that. El Paso county alone could flip the state if turnout in the county wasn't so low.

When have the Republicans ever won with high turnout?

Texas has low turnout even in Presidential years especially in Urban/suburban areas. If more people voted it might not be a red state.

[Major-Tom]

When have the Republicans ever won with high turnout?

Texas has low turnout even in Presidential years especially in Urban/suburban areas. If more people voted it might not be a red state.

Eh....maybe. Texas has some solid blue areas, but turnout isn't the only issue. The suburban areas are huge and they go deep red.

[Major-Tom]

When have the Republicans ever won with high turnout?

2004 actually, but yea Republicans generally dont benefit from higher turnout rates.

Keep in mind, too, that Hispanics voted a little over 40% GOP in 2004.