Illinois redistricting

Before the whining and handwringing about Republican gerrymandering starts, just want to point out once again the Dems do it too, whenever and wherever they can. In this case, Illinois.


"Democrats in charge of the process need some of Kinzinger’s blue-leaning voters to shore up Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) and an open seat in the northwest corner held by retiring Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.)."

Alrighty.

Good talk.

(08-25-2021 12:14 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Alrighty.

Good talk.

Its like the only response Interested can muster is a shallow as **** drive by snidely delivered ad hom. Lucky us.


Perhaps instead of being a drive-by tool, you may want to actually participate instead of standing at the edge flinging poo. Or not. The downside to free action I surmise....

Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

I knew I should have read the FAQ before I dived in!

(08-25-2021 06:35 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

I knew I should have read the FAQ before I dived in!

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

And..... you decide as a result......

to do nothing *but* fling poo.

Nothing substantive. In the slightest.

Just. Fling. Poo.

Seem accurate to you?

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

Ill take it from that that you are a big fan of the post that simply flings poo. Funny, based on many of your comments I would have thought otherwise. Quite surprising.

(08-25-2021 06:35 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

I knew I should have read the FAQ before I dived in!

No FAQ necessary. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to be able to ascertain that the vast majority of posts here, even the pithy snarky ones, arent of the level of doing *anything* but flinging poo.

That is, like you just did. Awesome job. (I feel like Im talking to my nephew after hearing he did #2 'all by himself' for the first time.)

I am glad you are regaling in that stellar achievement!!

(08-25-2021 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 06:35 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

I knew I should have read the FAQ before I dived in!

No FAQ necessary. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to be able to ascertain that the vast majority of posts here, even the pithy snarky ones, arent of the level of doing *anything* but flinging poo.

That is, like you just did. Awesome job. (I feel like Im talking to my nephew after hearing he did #2 'all by himself' for the first time.)

I am glad you are regaling in that stellar achievement!!

Start a redistricting discussion without throwing poo at either "side" and I'll be happy to join in. We might even agree on some stuff.

(08-25-2021 11:12 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 06:35 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:33 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Participate in what? The childish whataboutism that passes for "discussion"?

There is indeed room for a good look at redistricting and how it might be improved to avoid gerrymandering, but to start the thread with a "neener neener the other guys do it too!" post isn't really a good way to begin.

Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

I knew I should have read the FAQ before I dived in!

No FAQ necessary. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to be able to ascertain that the vast majority of posts here, even the pithy snarky ones, arent of the level of doing *anything* but flinging poo.

That is, like you just did. Awesome job. (I feel like Im talking to my nephew after hearing he did #2 'all by himself' for the first time.)

I am glad you are regaling in that stellar achievement!!

Start a redistricting discussion without throwing poo at either "side" and I'll be happy to join in. We might even agree on some stuff.

You are free to join a discussion my friend. Even one where you are critical of one side. Would be much better than a drive-by ad hom. Infinitely better.

Heck, be pithy and snarky with your proffered viewpoint. Heck, toss poo *with* substance and you wont get the response that you are getting. Both are still a huge upgrade from simple, poo throwing with zero substance. Same upgrade from ad-hom tinged raw poo throwing.

To your point, yes, I am cognizant that we might actually agree on a point or two. The other fact I am aware of that all we are aware of (that is aside from you, of course) is the deep response of "Alrighty. Good talk."

Glad to have you in a discussion if you want. But note a discussion pretty much excludes poo without substance.

(08-26-2021 07:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 11:12 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 06:35 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 03:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Interested... this is the Quad. The posting of links accompanied by pithy, snarky comments is only approved for the right-wing contingent! You'll get the hang of it.

I knew I should have read the FAQ before I dived in!

No FAQ necessary. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to be able to ascertain that the vast majority of posts here, even the pithy snarky ones, arent of the level of doing *anything* but flinging poo.

That is, like you just did. Awesome job. (I feel like Im talking to my nephew after hearing he did #2 'all by himself' for the first time.)

I am glad you are regaling in that stellar achievement!!

Start a redistricting discussion without throwing poo at either "side" and I'll be happy to join in. We might even agree on some stuff.

You are free to join a discussion my friend. Even one where you are critical of one side. Would be much better than a drive-by ad hom. Infinitely better.

Heck, be pithy and snarky with your proffered viewpoint. Heck, toss poo *with* substance and you wont get the response that you are getting. Both are still a huge upgrade from simple, poo throwing with zero substance. Same upgrade from ad-hom tinged raw poo throwing.

To your point, yes, I am cognizant that we might actually agree on a point or two. The other fact I am aware of that all we are aware of (that is aside from you, of course) is the deep response of "Alrighty. Good talk."

Glad to have you in a discussion if you want. But note a discussion pretty much excludes poo without substance.

Observing the facts is not throwing poo. Saying one party does it without acknowledging that all parties do it is throwing poo.

We have had this discussion before, and nobody can come up with a fair and workable solution. If X has one, I would like to hear it.

In the meantime, presented for your entertainment, the most gerrymandered districts in America

The ridiculous thing here is that there IS an article... worthy of discussion... the 'aside' by the OP doesn't detract from that... yet the 'aside' is the only thing that's been discussed.

The article suggests quite clearly that 'redistricting for political advantage' aka 'gerrymandering' is 'what politicians in power do'. We all KNOW this... so why do we so often argue about it??

I'm against this for dozens of reasons.... mostly because it quite literally creates segregation. I'd like to see someone create an algorithm that would follow natural boundaries like roads (especially more major roads) rivers, green belts, city limits etc etc etc and designs districts WITHOUT REGARD to political party/registrations etc. Population and geography. That's it.

(08-26-2021 08:21 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The ridiculous thing here is that there IS an article... worthy of discussion... the 'aside' by the OP doesn't detract from that... yet the 'aside' is the only thing that's been discussed.

The article suggests quite clearly that 'redistricting for political advantage' aka 'gerrymandering' is 'what politicians in power do'. We all KNOW this... so why do we so often argue about it??

I'm against this for dozens of reasons.... mostly because it quite literally creates segregation. I'd like to see someone create an algorithm that would follow natural boundaries like roads (especially more major roads) rivers, green belts, city limits etc etc etc and designs districts WITHOUT REGARD to political party/registrations etc. Population and geography. That's it.

Can't say I disagree, although I doubt such an algorithm exists. But what I can predict with 100% certainty is that such an algorithm would be contested by both parties. Such an algorithm would tend to make red states a little bluer and blue states a little redder. Both parties want just one of those outcomes.

I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

(08-26-2021 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

Agree with both of these

I don't know when the HOR was frozen at 435, but I think if we still added seats, we would be well above 6-700 by now, and in any case, added seats still require redistricting. the physical facilities in DC are already strained by 435. That is why we froze the number in the first place.

Mathematical algorithms have been suggested for decades now, but nobody has yet come up with one that withstands scrutiny and inspires acceptance by both sides. But it is a fine goal, a modern El Dorado. who knows, maybe some math genius will come up with one.

Until then, this bad system is the best we have.

In any case, the point was not to defend gerrymandering, it was to point out it is not a partisan to one party practice.

(08-26-2021 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know when the HOR was frozen at 435, but I think if we still added seats, we would be well above 6-700 by now, and in any case, added seats still require redistricting. the physical facilities in DC are already strained by 435. That is why we froze the number in the first place.

Mathematical algorithms have been suggested for decades now, but nobody has yet come up with one that withstands scrutiny and inspires acceptance by both sides. But it is a fine goal, a modern El Dorado. who knows, maybe some math genius will come up with one.

Until then, this bad system is the best we have.

In any case, the point was not to defend gerrymandering, it was to point out it is not a partisan to one party practice.

This is where the proportional representation model works well. One downside being that party mechanics start to play a serious role.

I don't think anyone here thinks gerrymandering is limited to a single party. I think the debate would be whether there is one party that engages in it more than the other.