(04-05-2022 01:46 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 07:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 04:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Neither side has clean hands when it comes to gerrymandering, or even lightly soiled hands. Both sides do it where they can, and honestly they both have to in order to keep up with the other party. The only way to end it fairly, without disadvantaging either party and thus their voters, is with federal legislation that ends it nationwide all at the same time.

That’s true, so far as it goes. But try putting that into statutory language. How will this work? Who is trusted by both sides to draw the districts? What formula will be approved by both sides?

Quote:States should also have to keep communities with similar interests together when possible

Define “communities”. Define “similar”. Define “possible”. There is simply no non-partisan, non-political way to square the circle, so long as single-member districts are in use.

Quote:look what the GOP did in Tennessee this cycle. Nashville had been the core of the 5th District throughout the 20th & 21st centuries. Makes sense for the Nashville area to be represented by one member of Congress, it is the capital city and a growing area. But it had a nasty habit of sending Democrats to the House since 1875, so Tennessee has now split the city between 3 districts in their new map to ensure that a Republican will be elected.

Agreed on Tennessee. Chopping up Nashville 3x is not in the interests of Nashville, or really Tennessee overall, imho.

(04-05-2022 09:02 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 07:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:States should also have to keep communities with similar interests together when possible

Define “communities”. Define “similar”. Define “possible”. There is simply no non-partisan, non-political way to square the circle, so long as single-member districts are in use.

Its not easy at all to codify gerrymandering

Example:

A town has to be divided into 2 districts

A N/S or NW to SE diagonal divide favors Dems

A E/W or NE to SW diagonal divide favors GOP


What is gerrymandering in a case like that?

These are all great points, and it certainly wouldn't be easy to ban gerrymandering by statute without advantaging one side or the other. Independent commissions seem to work well in some states, but not in others (for example NY, where the legislature can just ignore the committee and pass their own map; or in Virginia where they just gave up and turned the job over to the state Supreme Court). A 4-4 partisan commission with 1 Independent to break ties doesn't work well to me, as the vast majority of Independents actually lean pretty strongly one way or the other. And a straight 4-4 partisan commission runs the risk of deadlock, and reinforces the 2 party monopoly.

Communities as a basis has some potential, but as Georgian pointed out there are lots of definitional pitfalls. Unless and until somebody figures out a way our best bet may be for state courts to step in as Maryland's just did, Western Maryland looks like a good example of a place where Democrats were trying to dilute the Republican vote in a rural area just like Republicans have done in TN and Utah by splitting up Nashville and Salt Lake City. As Bullet said, the new MD map looks much more reasonable than either the 2010 map or the first 2020 version.

It's easier to look at states with fewer districts, and you can see a couple of good/bad maps in Nebraska and New Mexico. Nebraska left most of Omaha in the 2nd District, keeping the city largely together and allowing a potentially swing seat there while the other 2 are deep red. In New Mexico Democrats went for broke to try and get an all-blue delegation, creating two weak blue districts and one stronger blue district in a state that really should have 1 Republican representative. Democrats should have taken the safe 2-1 advantage over the 3-0 gamble, years like 2022 for instance they may find themselves with only 1 seat while the Republicans get both of the swingy ones.

One way to reduce gerrymandering might be to say that within each district, only one county is allowed to be only partially in the district. Additionally, any county with enough people to have an entire district is only allowed to have one district that crosses its county lines (and this district will be allowed to have portions of two counties to make the numbers work).

So each district would consist mostly of entire counties except for only one county (because it can't have parts of two counties). In big cities, most of the districts would be contained within the county.

If it is impossible to meet this standard due to the population distribution in the state, then each map gets a grade based on how many counties are completely within a district and how many districts do not cross any county boundaries. And the map with the highest grade is automatically accepted.

This won't be effective in Southern California (where all the counties have millions of people). But it would work pretty well everywhere else.

(04-05-2022 02:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 01:46 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 07:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 04:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Neither side has clean hands when it comes to gerrymandering, or even lightly soiled hands. Both sides do it where they can, and honestly they both have to in order to keep up with the other party. The only way to end it fairly, without disadvantaging either party and thus their voters, is with federal legislation that ends it nationwide all at the same time.

That’s true, so far as it goes. But try putting that into statutory language. How will this work? Who is trusted by both sides to draw the districts? What formula will be approved by both sides?

Quote:States should also have to keep communities with similar interests together when possible

Define “communities”. Define “similar”. Define “possible”. There is simply no non-partisan, non-political way to square the circle, so long as single-member districts are in use.

Quote:look what the GOP did in Tennessee this cycle. Nashville had been the core of the 5th District throughout the 20th & 21st centuries. Makes sense for the Nashville area to be represented by one member of Congress, it is the capital city and a growing area. But it had a nasty habit of sending Democrats to the House since 1875, so Tennessee has now split the city between 3 districts in their new map to ensure that a Republican will be elected.

Agreed on Tennessee. Chopping up Nashville 3x is not in the interests of Nashville, or really Tennessee overall, imho.

(04-05-2022 09:02 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 07:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:States should also have to keep communities with similar interests together when possible

Define “communities”. Define “similar”. Define “possible”. There is simply no non-partisan, non-political way to square the circle, so long as single-member districts are in use.

Its not easy at all to codify gerrymandering

Example:

A town has to be divided into 2 districts

A N/S or NW to SE diagonal divide favors Dems

A E/W or NE to SW diagonal divide favors GOP


What is gerrymandering in a case like that?

These are all great points, and it certainly wouldn't be easy to ban gerrymandering by statute without advantaging one side or the other. Independent commissions seem to work well in some states, but not in others (for example NY, where the legislature can just ignore the committee and pass their own map; or in Virginia where they just gave up and turned the job over to the state Supreme Court). A 4-4 partisan commission with 1 Independent to break ties doesn't work well to me, as the vast majority of Independents actually lean pretty strongly one way or the other. And a straight 4-4 partisan commission runs the risk of deadlock, and reinforces the 2 party monopoly.

Communities as a basis has some potential, but as Georgian pointed out there are lots of definitional pitfalls. Unless and until somebody figures out a way our best bet may be for state courts to step in as Maryland's just did, Western Maryland looks like a good example of a place where Democrats were trying to dilute the Republican vote in a rural area just like Republicans have done in TN and Utah by splitting up Nashville and Salt Lake City. As Bullet said, the new MD map looks much more reasonable than either the 2010 map or the first 2020 version.

It's easier to look at states with fewer districts, and you can see a couple of good/bad maps in Nebraska and New Mexico. Nebraska left most of Omaha in the 2nd District, keeping the city largely together and allowing a potentially swing seat there while the other 2 are deep red. In New Mexico Democrats went for broke to try and get an all-blue delegation, creating two weak blue districts and one stronger blue district in a state that really should have 1 Republican representative. Democrats should have taken the safe 2-1 advantage over the 3-0 gamble, years like 2022 for instance they may find themselves with only 1 seat while the Republicans get both of the swingy ones.

One way to reduce gerrymandering might be to say that within each district, only one county is allowed to be only partially in the district. Additionally, any county with enough people to have an entire district is only allowed to have one district that crosses its county lines (and this district will be allowed to have portions of two counties to make the numbers work).

So each district would consist mostly of entire counties except for only one county (because it can't have parts of two counties). In big cities, most of the districts would be contained within the county.

If it is impossible to meet this standard due to the population distribution in the state, then each map gets a grade based on how many counties are completely within a district and how many districts do not cross any county boundaries. And the map with the highest grade is automatically accepted.

This won't be effective in Southern California (where all the counties have millions of people). But it would work pretty well everywhere else.

Texas law requires the minimum splitting of counties, but that didn't stop the Democrats in 1990. And when their districts got thrown out by the courts, they did another district to be thrown out. Think I got moved 3 times in the 90s. And their awful districts were the basis of the court drawn 2000 districts where the legislature was split and deadlocked. That was the reason for Tom Delay's 2002 re-draw. Democrats hadn't won a statewide office in 10 years and yet had a 17-15 advantage in the House.

(04-05-2022 02:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 02:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 01:46 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 07:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 04:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Neither side has clean hands when it comes to gerrymandering, or even lightly soiled hands. Both sides do it where they can, and honestly they both have to in order to keep up with the other party. The only way to end it fairly, without disadvantaging either party and thus their voters, is with federal legislation that ends it nationwide all at the same time.

That’s true, so far as it goes. But try putting that into statutory language. How will this work? Who is trusted by both sides to draw the districts? What formula will be approved by both sides?

Quote:States should also have to keep communities with similar interests together when possible

Define “communities”. Define “similar”. Define “possible”. There is simply no non-partisan, non-political way to square the circle, so long as single-member districts are in use.

Quote:look what the GOP did in Tennessee this cycle. Nashville had been the core of the 5th District throughout the 20th & 21st centuries. Makes sense for the Nashville area to be represented by one member of Congress, it is the capital city and a growing area. But it had a nasty habit of sending Democrats to the House since 1875, so Tennessee has now split the city between 3 districts in their new map to ensure that a Republican will be elected.

Agreed on Tennessee. Chopping up Nashville 3x is not in the interests of Nashville, or really Tennessee overall, imho.

(04-05-2022 09:02 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 07:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Define “communities”. Define “similar”. Define “possible”. There is simply no non-partisan, non-political way to square the circle, so long as single-member districts are in use.

Its not easy at all to codify gerrymandering

Example:

A town has to be divided into 2 districts

A N/S or NW to SE diagonal divide favors Dems

A E/W or NE to SW diagonal divide favors GOP


What is gerrymandering in a case like that?

These are all great points, and it certainly wouldn't be easy to ban gerrymandering by statute without advantaging one side or the other. Independent commissions seem to work well in some states, but not in others (for example NY, where the legislature can just ignore the committee and pass their own map; or in Virginia where they just gave up and turned the job over to the state Supreme Court). A 4-4 partisan commission with 1 Independent to break ties doesn't work well to me, as the vast majority of Independents actually lean pretty strongly one way or the other. And a straight 4-4 partisan commission runs the risk of deadlock, and reinforces the 2 party monopoly.

Communities as a basis has some potential, but as Georgian pointed out there are lots of definitional pitfalls. Unless and until somebody figures out a way our best bet may be for state courts to step in as Maryland's just did, Western Maryland looks like a good example of a place where Democrats were trying to dilute the Republican vote in a rural area just like Republicans have done in TN and Utah by splitting up Nashville and Salt Lake City. As Bullet said, the new MD map looks much more reasonable than either the 2010 map or the first 2020 version.

It's easier to look at states with fewer districts, and you can see a couple of good/bad maps in Nebraska and New Mexico. Nebraska left most of Omaha in the 2nd District, keeping the city largely together and allowing a potentially swing seat there while the other 2 are deep red. In New Mexico Democrats went for broke to try and get an all-blue delegation, creating two weak blue districts and one stronger blue district in a state that really should have 1 Republican representative. Democrats should have taken the safe 2-1 advantage over the 3-0 gamble, years like 2022 for instance they may find themselves with only 1 seat while the Republicans get both of the swingy ones.

One way to reduce gerrymandering might be to say that within each district, only one county is allowed to be only partially in the district. Additionally, any county with enough people to have an entire district is only allowed to have one district that crosses its county lines (and this district will be allowed to have portions of two counties to make the numbers work).

So each district would consist mostly of entire counties except for only one county (because it can't have parts of two counties). In big cities, most of the districts would be contained within the county.

If it is impossible to meet this standard due to the population distribution in the state, then each map gets a grade based on how many counties are completely within a district and how many districts do not cross any county boundaries. And the map with the highest grade is automatically accepted.

This won't be effective in Southern California (where all the counties have millions of people). But it would work pretty well everywhere else.

Texas law requires the minimum splitting of counties, but that didn't stop the Democrats in 1990. And when their districts got thrown out by the courts, they did another district to be thrown out. Think I got moved 3 times in the 90s. And their awful districts were the basis of the court drawn 2000 districts where the legislature was split and deadlocked. That was the reason for Tom Delay's 2002 re-draw. Democrats hadn't won a statewide office in 10 years and yet had a 17-15 advantage in the House.

What if you had the "automatic rejection" of any map with an inferior mechanically-assigned grade based on county splits & districts completely within one large county? Maybe that would make it work better?

(04-09-2021 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

It's OK when team blue does it though

Democrats need to do more of it…