https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/05/f...ander.html

"A three-judge federal panel unanimously ruled Friday that Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional district map is unconstitutional, and ordered the creation of a new map in time for the 2020 election.

This is the latest in a series of decisions across the country striking down partisan maps, including in neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania. Plus, U.S. Supreme Court rulings are pending for cases out of North Carolina and Maryland...."

The problem is finding the line between "acceptable" partisan gerrymandering and "unacceptable." And the bigger issue is that courts are turning partisan and pulling redistricting out of the political process as in Pennsylvania where the judge hired someone who created districts favoring the Democrats (while he did totally ignore incumbents of both parties).

Ohio, according to the article, has set up a new process for the next decade.

This map actually makes sense except in the northeast/Cleveland area (map doesn't show the cities in enough detail to see what is done there, but they usually are required to gerrymander to create minority districts). Article doesn't specify which part of the map was "too partisan." The long district on the east side bordering Pennsylvania seems reasonable as it is similar counties.

(05-04-2019 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is finding the line between "acceptable" partisan gerrymandering and "unacceptable."

People have talking about this stuff my whole life and nobody has ever been able to provide a simple, non-partisan answer to that question.

(05-04-2019 10:39 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is finding the line between "acceptable" partisan gerrymandering and "unacceptable."

People have taking about this stuff my whole life and nobody has ever been able to provide a simple, non-partisan answer to that question.

Cut the map into squares of 100K (I think thats the supposed to be what one house member supposedly represents). The districts will be random. The problem is if you do that--the number of minority districts would be dramatically reduced because the majority racial makeup will likely dominate any randomly created district. For instance, African Americans only make up about 12% of the population---so its fairly unlikely they would end up actually being a majority in any randomly created square. So while they were 12% of the population--they probably wouldn't represent anywhere near 12% of the House. However, the reality is solving that issue by creating minority districts is really is nothing more than gerrymandering. Your changing the districts to favor a given party or race.

What might be more reasonable is create voting districts that are squares of 200K for local representation. That way half a states house members would be elected by district. Then allow the other half of each states house members to be elected "at large". That would allow the states minorities to line up behind candidates that reflect their beliefs without the need to gerrymander districts. Seems like that type of set up would allow more minority candidates to get elected. Something like that might be a reasonable compromise measure to address both sides of the issue.

(05-04-2019 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 10:39 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is finding the line between "acceptable" partisan gerrymandering and "unacceptable."

People have taking about this stuff my whole life and nobody has ever been able to provide a simple, non-partisan answer to that question.

Cut the map into squares of 100K (I think thats the supposed to be what one house member supposedly represents). The districts will be random. The problem is if you do that--the number of minority districts would be dramatically reduced because the majority racial makeup will likely dominate any randomly created district. For instance, African Americans only make up about 12% of the population---so its fairly unlikely they would end up actually being a majority in any randomly created square. So while they were 12% of the population--they probably wouldn't represent anywhere near 12% of the House. However, the reality is solving that issue by creating minority districts is really is nothing more than gerrymandering. Your changing the districts to favor a given party or race.

What might be more reasonable is create voting districts that are squares of 200K for local representation. That way half a states house members would be elected by district. Then allow the other half of each states house members to be elected "at large". That would allow the states minorities to line up behind candidates that reflect their beliefs without the need to gerrymander districts. Seems like that type of set up would allow more minority candidates to get elected. Something like that might be a reasonable compromise measure to address both sides of the issue.

Well there probably is not a single state where you couldn't do districts with no county under 250,000 people being split while creating compact districts. As it is, most states have many counties split. If you followed that rule, you would have little room for gerrymandering outside cities.

Well, as a Pennsylvanian, I can only speak to that issue and I think the courts did the right thing in intervening here. Further, I think it is the consensus of most Pennsylvanians that the courts did the right thing. It would appear to be a much more controversial issue when I watch Fox or CNN or read national political articles than it is locally. Locally, everyone looks of the issue, hears out both sides, and most people say, “Yeah, that makes sense,” and they move on with their day.

Of course the Republicans don’t like it because they just lost a huge advantage. However, government is supposed to be for everyone, not just those in power. Allowing blatant partisan gerrymandering to go completely unchecked is not good for the electorate.

Here’s the way I look at it in PA. By every reasonable measurement, Pennsylvania is a true purple state. Looking at state governors, state senators, presidential elections, etc., you are just as likely to be elected as a Republican as you are a Democrat and vice versa.

Well, if that’s the case in statewide votes, that should be reflected in our state representatives as well. However, if the state representatives are overwhelmingly one way or the other — as was the case here since 2011 — clearly the map is wrong and not only should be changed, it MUST be changed in the name of democracy. If the legislators insist on putting self-interest ahead of the interests of the voters, then the courts must intervene. Otherwise, why do you even have courts?

Also, you have to understand that the Republican Legislature here was given multiple chances to correct the gross imbalance and they simply declined. Well, if that’s how you’re going to insist on operating, that’s fine but then don’t come crying to me whenever they stick the screws to you.

As I said, I cannot speak to Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina or anywhere else. I truly believe that every state is different. However, if the dynamic is similar in those places as it is in Pennsylvania, then as a democracy loving American, of course I favor the courts getting involved there too.

(05-05-2019 03:04 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, government is supposed to be for everyone, not just those in power.

I call BS on that one...who famously said, "Elections have consequences"?
And remember the vote on the unACA? Partisan much?
Turnabout is fair play.

(05-05-2019 03:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-05-2019 03:04 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, government is supposed to be for everyone, not just those in power.

I call BS on that one...who famously said, "Elections have consequences"?
And remember the vote on the unACA? Partisan much?
Turnabout is fair play.

I had to delete mine before pounding the return key....it'd got me banned again...