(06-29-2015 09:21 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Owl and Ham are incorrect in their assumption regarding the affect of minority / majority districts on the overall makeup of a state's representation.

Umm, it's not an assumption, it's provable fact, and I proved it.

(06-29-2015 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  That's a fix that does a small amount to fix the problem, but doesn't really solve the problem.
I say let the a computer simulate 100-1000 possible maps. Find the average # of seats the minority party would win based on the election results of the last election. They can either vote on a map that was within that average. Or they can take all the maps within that average and have in randomly choose one.
For example the Duke computer simulation produced an average of 7.7 democratic seats when they studied the controversial NC redistricting plan. Any of the maps that they could choose from must have given the Ds 7 or 8 of the districts.

Did the Duke districts comply with federal law?

Do you really think Duke would have taken the time to do this without making sure the code would comply with all the requirements?

(06-29-2015 11:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  El Oh El.

Your dumb*** idea would create an even worse gerrymandering than what we have now.

How so?

Because instead of creating a 6th Congressional District in SC that marginalizes 500-1000 families just to get a leftist in office you are now talking about creating one that marginalizes at minimum tens of thousands just so you can get another leftist is office.

At what point does the fact that no leftist has been elected to statewide office in SC since 1998 come into play? That the fact that no leftists, except the gerrymandered Congressional district, has won a race other than at the county level since that point? Hell...most of the dims who are in the SC Legislature couldn't win a national election because they would be called too conservative.

County lines puts politics at the local level. That's where Congressional districts should be drawn. There is absolutely no reason why three people who vote for the same county treasurer should vote for three different Congressmen like it is now.

(06-29-2015 11:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  El Oh El.

Your dumb*** idea would create an even worse gerrymandering than what we have now.

How so?

Because instead of creating a 6th Congressional District in SC that marginalizes 500-1000 families just to get a leftist in office you are now talking about creating one that marginalizes at minimum tens of thousands just so you can get another leftist is office.

At what point does the fact that no leftist has been elected to statewide office in SC since 1998 come into play? That the fact that no leftists, except the gerrymandered Congressional district, has won a race other than at the county level since that point? Hell...most of the dims who are in the SC Legislature couldn't win a national election because they would be called too conservative.

County lines puts politics at the local level. That's where Congressional districts should be drawn. There is absolutely no reason why three people who vote for the same county treasurer should vote for three different Congressmen like it is now.

It seems clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

(06-29-2015 11:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  El Oh El.

Your dumb*** idea would create an even worse gerrymandering than what we have now.

How so?

Because instead of creating a 6th Congressional District in SC that marginalizes 500-1000 families just to get a leftist in office you are now talking about creating one that marginalizes at minimum tens of thousands just so you can get another leftist is office.

At what point does the fact that no leftist has been elected to statewide office in SC since 1998 come into play? That the fact that no leftists, except the gerrymandered Congressional district, has won a race other than at the county level since that point? Hell...most of the dims who are in the SC Legislature couldn't win a national election because they would be called too conservative.

County lines puts politics at the local level. That's where Congressional districts should be drawn. There is absolutely no reason why three people who vote for the same county treasurer should vote for three different Congressmen like it is now.

It seems clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

So prove me wrong.


Explain why three people who vote for the same county treasurer should vote for three separate Congressmen. The county treasurer is going to have far more of an effect on their lives.

Explain to me how it is justifiable to manipulate Congressional districts just to ensure one party wins a seat.

Last time I checked we elected Congressmen based upon the majority of the votes in their geographical district.

(06-29-2015 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  El Oh El.

Your dumb*** idea would create an even worse gerrymandering than what we have now.

How so?

Because instead of creating a 6th Congressional District in SC that marginalizes 500-1000 families just to get a leftist in office you are now talking about creating one that marginalizes at minimum tens of thousands just so you can get another leftist is office.

At what point does the fact that no leftist has been elected to statewide office in SC since 1998 come into play? That the fact that no leftists, except the gerrymandered Congressional district, has won a race other than at the county level since that point? Hell...most of the dims who are in the SC Legislature couldn't win a national election because they would be called too conservative.

County lines puts politics at the local level. That's where Congressional districts should be drawn. There is absolutely no reason why three people who vote for the same county treasurer should vote for three different Congressmen like it is now.

It seems clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

So prove me wrong.


Explain why three people who vote for the same county treasurer should vote for three separate Congressmen. The county treasurer is going to have far more of an effect on their lives.

Explain to me how it is justifiable to manipulate Congressional districts just to ensure one party wins a seat.

Last time I checked we elected Congressmen based upon the majority of the votes in their geographical district.

How the heck do you draw districts? One county is far too small for state senate or national elections. County sizes don't have equal population numbers either so even on the state house level you are completely throwing things out of whack.

Either you are missing that major aspect because you don't understand this, or you are seriously suggesting a "one county one rep" system that would be RIDICULOUSLY disproportional in favor of the Republicans.

I never said that each county should elect a separate Congressman, just that each person within a county boundary should elect the same Congressman. I have no problem with Congressional districts encompassing multiple counties. I just want the citizens within a county to be voting for the same Congressman.


And last time I checked out our Congressional electoral system it was supposed to be the majority rules in the geographical region you lived in. Please point out where in the Constitution it says we have to draw voting districts to ensure a certain political party gets a seat.

Eleven out of forty-six SC Counties elect two Congressmen. Nine of the eleven are split by the 6th District, the only leftist district in SC.

(06-30-2015 12:19 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I never said that each county should elect a separate Congressman, just that each person within a county boundary should elect the same Congressman. I have no problem with Congressional districts encompassing multiple counties. I just want the citizens within a county to be voting for the same Congressman.


And last time I checked out our Congressional electoral system it was supposed to be the majority rules in the geographical region you lived in. Please point out where in the Constitution it says we have to draw voting districts to ensure a certain political party gets a seat.

All that does is make gerrymandering a little bit harder while giving one more rule for district makers to be in compliance with. A rule that might not even be mathematically possible if it were to be implemented, and has the potential to do more harm than good.

(06-30-2015 12:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:19 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I never said that each county should elect a separate Congressman, just that each person within a county boundary should elect the same Congressman. I have no problem with Congressional districts encompassing multiple counties. I just want the citizens within a county to be voting for the same Congressman.


And last time I checked out our Congressional electoral system it was supposed to be the majority rules in the geographical region you lived in. Please point out where in the Constitution it says we have to draw voting districts to ensure a certain political party gets a seat.

All that does is make gerrymandering a little bit harder while giving one more rule for district makers to be in compliance with. A rule that might not even be mathematically possible if it were to be implemented, and has the potential to do more harm than good.

Not really.


Most county boundaries have been in place for a long time. In three years South Carolina's county boundaries will all be a century old. If the population of a state requires you to split a county split it right down the middle from the northern most geographic point to the southern most geographic point. The drawing of Congressional districts shouldn't be about who wins and loses but if the people in the district get the chance to choose their representation.

(06-29-2015 11:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  That's a fix that does a small amount to fix the problem, but doesn't really solve the problem.
I say let the a computer simulate 100-1000 possible maps. Find the average # of seats the minority party would win based on the election results of the last election. They can either vote on a map that was within that average. Or they can take all the maps within that average and have in randomly choose one.
For example the Duke computer simulation produced an average of 7.7 democratic seats when they studied the controversial NC redistricting plan. Any of the maps that they could choose from must have given the Ds 7 or 8 of the districts.

Did the Duke districts comply with federal law?

Do you really think Duke would have taken the time to do this without making sure the code would comply with all the requirements?

Their methodology, as you describe it, doesn't. Do you have a link?

(06-29-2015 06:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 04:05 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  12 is what happens when you create a minority-safe district. IIRC, that district or something like it has been in NC pretty much since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Alma Adams is one of 3 democrats, the only woman, and the only African-American in the NC congressional delegation, so it's achieving its intended purpose. 9 is sort of the flip side, what's left over when you carve out 12.

The other two democrats represent 1 and 4, both of which appear to have been carved out to create safe democrat seats. 4 includes Raleigh-Durham, which is going to lean left, plus two or three tentacles into other areas that are probably safe for democrats. 1 also has some odd tentacles. I'm guessing the core area is predominantly democrat and the tentacles reach down to other predominately democrat areas. 13 is kind of like 9, what you are left with when you carve the democrat areas out for 1 and 4.

So republicans create one safe minority seat and two other safe democrat seats, and in the process create 10 relatively safe republican seats.

Those minority safe districts are often created by republicans in order to create more GOP safe districts. They do it in GA & FL all the time. Look at Corrine Brown's ridiculous district. It's all the black areas in Jacksonville, Orlando and between.

Let's not pretend the Democrats don't do the same thing in NY, CA, etc.

They sure did it in Louisville. The Democrats changed the Map to put former Republican precincts in the next County into a different District and added the very Democrat strong Southern precincts into the 3rd District to knock out a long term Republican U.S.Congress Woman and put in a Democrat Weasel that is So far Left, Obama looks Republican.
They did the Same thing when creating the Merged local Metro Government to make sure there were a lot of Minority districts so Democrats are always in the Majority in Metro Louisville Government.

(06-30-2015 04:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 04:05 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  12 is what happens when you create a minority-safe district. IIRC, that district or something like it has been in NC pretty much since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Alma Adams is one of 3 democrats, the only woman, and the only African-American in the NC congressional delegation, so it's achieving its intended purpose. 9 is sort of the flip side, what's left over when you carve out 12.

The other two democrats represent 1 and 4, both of which appear to have been carved out to create safe democrat seats. 4 includes Raleigh-Durham, which is going to lean left, plus two or three tentacles into other areas that are probably safe for democrats. 1 also has some odd tentacles. I'm guessing the core area is predominantly democrat and the tentacles reach down to other predominately democrat areas. 13 is kind of like 9, what you are left with when you carve the democrat areas out for 1 and 4.

So republicans create one safe minority seat and two other safe democrat seats, and in the process create 10 relatively safe republican seats.

Those minority safe districts are often created by republicans in order to create more GOP safe districts. They do it in GA & FL all the time. Look at Corrine Brown's ridiculous district. It's all the black areas in Jacksonville, Orlando and between.

Let's not pretend the Democrats don't do the same thing in NY, CA, etc.

They sure did it in Louisville. The Democrats changed the Map to put former Republican precincts in the next County into a different District and added the very Democrat strong Southern precincts into the 3rd District to knock out a long term Republican U.S.Congress Woman and put in a Democrat Weasel that is So far Left, Obama looks Republican.
They did the Same thing when creating the Merged local Metro Government to make sure there were a lot of Minority districts so Democrats are always in the Majority in Metro Louisville Government.

They all do it. Can't let the fox watch the hen house.

(06-30-2015 05:09 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 04:05 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  12 is what happens when you create a minority-safe district. IIRC, that district or something like it has been in NC pretty much since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Alma Adams is one of 3 democrats, the only woman, and the only African-American in the NC congressional delegation, so it's achieving its intended purpose. 9 is sort of the flip side, what's left over when you carve out 12.

The other two democrats represent 1 and 4, both of which appear to have been carved out to create safe democrat seats. 4 includes Raleigh-Durham, which is going to lean left, plus two or three tentacles into other areas that are probably safe for democrats. 1 also has some odd tentacles. I'm guessing the core area is predominantly democrat and the tentacles reach down to other predominately democrat areas. 13 is kind of like 9, what you are left with when you carve the democrat areas out for 1 and 4.

So republicans create one safe minority seat and two other safe democrat seats, and in the process create 10 relatively safe republican seats.

Those minority safe districts are often created by republicans in order to create more GOP safe districts. They do it in GA & FL all the time. Look at Corrine Brown's ridiculous district. It's all the black areas in Jacksonville, Orlando and between.

Let's not pretend the Democrats don't do the same thing in NY, CA, etc.

They sure did it in Louisville. The Democrats changed the Map to put former Republican precincts in the next County into a different District and added the very Democrat strong Southern precincts into the 3rd District to knock out a long term Republican U.S.Congress Woman and put in a Democrat Weasel that is So far Left, Obama looks Republican.
They did the Same thing when creating the Merged local Metro Government to make sure there were a lot of Minority districts so Democrats are always in the Majority in Metro Louisville Government.

They all do it. Can't let the fox watch the hen house.

Yep, this is a bipartisan issue. Republicans have been more guilty of it as of late, but that's only because they have been in control of more state legislatures the past few election cycles. It's a partisanship issue, and not a party one.

It should be noted than many of these minority voting districts are required by Federal court rulings and Federal laws.

(06-30-2015 09:19 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  It should be noted than many of these minority voting districts are required by Federal court rulings and Federal laws.

Get rid of those laws. Results in some of the most incompetent legislators.

(06-30-2015 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:19 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  It should be noted than many of these minority voting districts are required by Federal court rulings and Federal laws.

Get rid of those laws. Results in some of the most incompetent legislators.

Well.................you know.......................racism and battle flags............what can one do?

(06-30-2015 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:19 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  It should be noted than many of these minority voting districts are required by Federal court rulings and Federal laws.

Get rid of those laws. Results in some of the most incompetent legislators.

Its called the Voting Rights Act.

If you want to see some really horrendous gerrymandering, look at Maryland.

(06-30-2015 09:51 AM)Hitch Wrote:  If you want to see some really horrendous gerrymandering, look at Maryland.

That state looks like one big gerrymander in the first place.