Supercomputer to Eliminating Gerrmandering

Apr 18, 2017 4:59 PM

carlosmencianumberone

Views

423078

Likes

9542

Dislikes

318

In the United States, we have this thing called Gerrymandering, I'm sure you may have heard of it. This is where state legislation draws congressional districts to favor their party, and is illegal. This is Illinois' 4th district, also known as the "earmuff" district. NOBODY LIVES IN THE REALLY THIN PART. The goal was merge two majority Hispanic neighborhoods together, with a black one in between. Racial gerrymandering is also illegal.

I'm sure you have seen this picture on here before. It gives a pretty good illustration of how it works. How do they get away with it? First off, I will explain the rules for drawing districts.
1.) Must have about the same population per district.
2.) Must be compact, contiguous, and rely on geography and political subdivisions (towns, counties, cities)

However, the state legislators who draw the districts often use partisanship to redraw the districts, which results in these awfully drawn districts. Supreme Court made this test to see if legislators were drawing the lines relying on political partisanship. In this test, they had to prove they had intent, and effect, in drawing the lines based on partisanship. However, this is very hard to prove and the court never could prove they were doing it.

My professor at the University of Illinois is working on a way to end gerrymandering with a super computer, which is apparently the fastest computer used for research. It can draw millions of different maps that are compact, contiguous, and rely on geography and political subdivisions and effectively turn political affiliation off.

Just watch this video. My professor explains it much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JUzbvjZ1OY

The fact people can openly say they are redrawing districts to maintain a majority and be fine is sickening. Both dems and republicans.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I live in Chicago. I can confirm that our politicians (Chicago and the state in general) are corrupt as fuck.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Oddly shaped districts != Evil Gerrymandering, though that is a possibility.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Unless someone literally turns the political affiliation thing on. Like, whoever owns the computer, under the influence of whoever pays them

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

That one in Chicago kind of had a purpose in connecting two Hispanic neighborhoods. There's a Last Week Tonight that explains this.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Still, gerrymandering can be terrible. Don't get me wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The super computer will probably be used to super gerrymander, sadly.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Supermandering

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Gerrymandering is legal. That is why they do it. It is only illegal if evidence is presented to a court shows that the districts (1)

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Partisan Gerrymandering is legal. . . . Racial Gerrymandering is illegal.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Boundaries disenfranchise based on ethnic or racial lines. Texas recently got in trouble for this in federal court.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Exactly. Drawing districts so specific communities get representation is a good thing.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I live outside of Chicago. Indiana side, and a conservative. My votes for the last 32 years have never counted. Aunt Mary, died 35 ago. vote

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who told you gerrymandering was illegal?

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

When provably done for racial or economic reasons, the courts have ruled it to be illegal...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

eliminate districts. done. you're welcome

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Yeah, just rewrite 50 state constitutions. Done. You're welcome.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

if you need a supercomputer to setup the district, then maybe rewriting 50 states constitution to remove the mention of districts is easier.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The rule of law could be a fairly simple geometric rule (e.g. Max perimeter:area ratio), plus the delegation of a bipartisan panel. (1)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The bipartisan panel would have to work together to pass a solution, and the geometry rule would create the compactness. (2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If they want to use an algorithm to solve for the rules, ok. It's easier than changing our system of gov't to proportional representation.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What's laughable is when one political party accuses the other of this. In reality, they both tend to do it when given the opportunity to.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Not true. The Dems could've maintained House control in 2010 had they "optimized" their own states, and they didn't do it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Gerrymandering is only illegal if done with a racial bias. Political gerrymandering is perfectly legal.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Perfectly legal doesn't make it any less embarrassing. SCOTUS never ruled out banning it, they just didn't had no manageable way of doing so

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I-L-L!

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

I-N-I

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

partisan gerrymandering is not illegal

9 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 4

Yeah, the pic in #1 is a good example of the 2nd example in #2. It's a good thing.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I-L-L! Didn't even know this was going on here.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I-N-I!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

if the supreme court put an end to gerrymandering, Democrats would benefit the most, which means this conservative court won't

9 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 28

Really patting the dems on the back without knowing what's going on right there.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

the court hasn't been conservative for awhile. do you think overfall (sp?) would have happenned in a conservative court?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

We are 1 death of a REALLY old person away from a Conservative Court. Ginsberg is 84. Breyer is 78. Swing vote Kennedy is 80.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

God willing, yes. But conservatives die too :p.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Yeah but those conservatives will be replaced by another conservative keeping the totals the same ala Scalia being replaced by the 'noob'.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Kennedy, a conservative judge, has expressed a willingness to find a solution to Gerrymandering.

9 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 5

Kennedy has been a moderate I thought, at least I heard lawyers argue to him since he is usually that fifth vote on a decision.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The obvious way seems to be to remove representation and just accept individual votes.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You don't realize how much Dems gerrymander. They constantly try to sequester minority voting blocks under the guise of "making their vote

9 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 14

you already knew that i didn't say "democrats dont gerrymander", but you went ahead and posted the obvious. we'd get more seats overall

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 8

This just in, every political party attempts to gain more leverage and power when they have the chance. More at 11.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Count" if you think it's only republicans you'll be in for a big surprise.

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 10

But that's a good thing. #2 in this picture.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

they unfortunately have to look for minority blocs precisely BECAUSE the GOP leaves them out, they only want affluent christian whites

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 17

You seriously think Rs only want affluent Christian whites? Do you realize they would lose every election if that were so? Use your brain.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 9

they want affluent because of the taxes paid:welfare ratio. they want christian due to political theism. not above lying to the poor though

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 8

They want R votes. They don't care who they come from.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

Which U of I school?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Considering it's engineering, most likely to be urbana champaign

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Oh true that. Good catch

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it is Champaign. Blue Waters is located across the street from Assembly Hall parking lot. http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/enabling/bluewaters

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Ah and that's why I wouldn't know. Rarely ventured over there

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

theres not a whole lot over there besides research park buildings & student slum apartments subject to champaign's exploitative tenancy laws

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you turn that district 90 degrees clockwise, it looks like a musical note. Which is appropriate seeing as we're all being played.

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 5

this deserves more comments

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

and upvotes

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

in the 'perfect' distribution shown, what you wind up with is five extremist legislators, since those districts will never 'swing'

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

In the sense that 30 people voted blue and won 3 seats etc. The number of seats should represent the number of votes.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

this is a problem in the current congress; legislators in heavily partisan districts never need compromise because they face no opposition

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

i.e. the Freedom Caucus

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Without pointing fingers one way or the other, do some research into which party does this most often. In fact, almost exclusively.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 5

It doesn't matter, it's a flaw in an out of date system which could be easily rectified. It shouldn't be a variable.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 7

Problem is, the people who rigged the system are the ones now making the laws. It makes it much harder to change things.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

And then consider how you vote in the future based on that dishonesty.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

I can't because one party says I have to have a specific ID to vote

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP proudly presents their gerrymandering website: http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

"Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the /

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans."

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Tbh the dems do it too but not as much/often and with an eye towards giving minorities their own districts

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

#2 is exactly how UK General elections work

9 years ago | Likes 90 Dislikes 9

This is exactly what Britain did in Northern Ireland after partition.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

CGPGrey did a video about how the UKs last election was the least representative ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

But that's not so much due to districts as it is due to FPTP. Separate issue.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

UK is done purely on population numbers and political subdivisions, all the politics is completely removed from it.

9 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 4

A lot easier to draw a district around a distinct community when the limit is ~70,000 though, as opposed to ~700,000 for our Congress.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Why are you getting downvoted? Boundaries are drawn by independently: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_commissions_(United_Kingdom)

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Because it doesn't fit with the story he wants to portray

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Would make sense seeing as theres about 30 in London and about 10 in all of Scotland

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Yeah, although Wales is an odd one, 40 seats is too many for such a small population

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

True but you take that away from Wales, and they'd be a fuckin uproar

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Plan was to cut it by 10 to 30 in the cut from 650 to 600, wasn't really publisiced enough before it was canned to create much of a stir

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

How often are they changed? Each election or like 20 years?

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 10

Every 10 years

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Constituencies are adjusted after every census (every ten years in a year ending in 1), with occaisional major changes

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

In Canada modifications happen after the census (every couple years) so districts match populations.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I believe districting is also done by Elections Canada, which is supposed to be a non-biased entity.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yup. They're overseen by a judge when redistricting, they have strict guidelines for "fairness", and they consult the public all the time.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Whenever the government wants to. The conservatives plan on reducing seats from 650 to 500, undoubtedly moving boundaries to benefit them.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 5

It's rare for constituency boundaries to be changed though, whether because of tradition or because of the hassle it'd cause

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

The new boundaries won't be perfect, but they'll be closer to reality. That's what matters, not any imaginary benefit to a particular party.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes and no - Gov has no say for minor changes based on census pop. Changes, big 650 to 600 change is gov based and canned by coalition prev.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Boundary revisions are meant to be regular (8-12 years)to account for pop. Gov't has said to cut 50 seats but can't draw boundaries US style

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Also all boundary changes are by the completely Electoral commission, gov gets 0 say on shape of new boundaries, unlike USA where state...1

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Govs often run electoral commissions, bringing partisan politics into the mix

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

purely from an outside perspective, how the fuck do you get anything done w a committee of 500?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I read one theorist stating that however big a body is, it always ends up with 12-20 people actually deciding stuff.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 8

Fair fight districts like we have here in Washington work pretty well, its based on geographic identity, population and compactness.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I trust anything political coming from Illinois. They've never had any issues politically.

9 years ago | Likes 100 Dislikes 4

Yah. Its called the windy city only because of the weather. Not a political metaphor.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Uh... yes. But both definitions now apply.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Vote early, vote often

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Vote till you die. Vote after you die.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

In chicago, the voting never stops.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Most importantly, Vote Daley

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Lmao you catch on quick buddy but you lost

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Savage.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As an Illinoisian, I had to laugh. And cry. Both. At the same time. Oh Illinois...

9 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 0

at least you're not Mississippi

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

How bad are taxes and corruption in Mississippi?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

well our congressman was one of the geniuses who proposed we remove the EPA entirely... so there's that

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

More of... its just a general shit hole that could be nice. You know what, hgtv could do Fixer Upper the State: Mississippi.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah as far as states go it's usually either Mississippi or Alabama competing for the title of "worst at everything"

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Also as an Illinoisan, it's "Illinoisan"

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Crap. That was a complete typo. I've always spelled it Illinoisan too. Not sure where that extra "i" came from.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I've never really knew we were called that since I always end up telling people I'm from Chicago

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yep I am also "from Chicago" lol

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As a southern illinoisan, my vote will never count. I laugh and then cry about my taxes.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yeah who cares about gerrymandering when our voices were never cared about anyway? (Southern Illinois here too)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It has been bad, but hardly unique unfortunately. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ranking-the-states-from-most-to-least-corrupt/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Illinois is up there in corruption according to your link.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I never said it wasn't?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Interesting read

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Interesting read, I wonder if the level of corruption in CA and NY are due to the level of business they have.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Is imagine so in NY considering its the world's banking capital, but corruption in CA is rather low when you look at it proportionally.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Also worth noting is that WA is currently in the midst of a tech boom, but is one of the least corrupt states...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just wait

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Different industries are more susceptible to corruption maybe?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You don't need a supercomputer, you need a process that isn't in the control of the existing ruling parties.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

This just in, supercomputer found murdered, empty coke can at scene of crime.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

As a Texan, I would gofundme the shit out of this super computer. Fuck Gerrymandering.

9 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 0

I dont even think you need to be from Texas to want to say fuck gerrymandering.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I think we need to close off our 1 man districts first.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think they're getting invests from larger donors than gofundme has to offer

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

Hmm? Ooooh, blue Texan. Frustrated that your cities vote blue but your state overall votes red?

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

I'd be interested to see what district maps look like in comparison between current and proposed generated maps.

9 years ago | Likes 749 Dislikes 1

If this ends up like the neural networl that's learning to cook this is gonna be hilariously bad.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's just a circle around Skynet as 'District ∞'

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

id love to see the electoral outcome. dems will still be out maned as they congregate in cities but still it'd be fairer than current state

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Technically that shouldn't matter - you should have more districts in higher density areas, and less districts in low populated areas.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Check out range voting project. - http://rangevoting.org/ interesting other take on this issue to help produce more representative results

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

*raises eyebrow skeptically* and half way down the page here is the first caveat... Boo! More research is needed.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hey! Someone actually mentioned this statistically-provable best known (and very easy) voting system! There's hope for humanity yet.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is ridiculously complicated in an already complicated system. Ranked ballots would be a simpler approach.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm guessing the computer wont generate a number of the current maps

9 years ago | Likes 165 Dislikes 4

It will if you feed it different optimization parameters and make it focus of fucking with the system

9 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 0

An engineer has alreadyy done a rendition of this based on compactness bdistricting.com/2010

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Nice. Someone already mentioned this. +1 ????

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Oct 21, 2024 11:32 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Could you use a URL shortener such as bitly? Or is that not applicable to this scenario?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

WaPo links are imgur and Twitter kryptonite

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Or we could use Single Transferable Vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

STV still uses districts. It fixes a different problem (proportionality).

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

STV can also be combined with district to simplify ballots or ensure some REGIONAL proportionality, but not necessarily.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

A proportional vote obviates districts because are both are methods that are meant to achieve proportionality.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It's separate. Districts in STV still need to be drawn fairly.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can you explain what role districts play in STV?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

STV is has districts. They're usually bigger than in FPTP because they're multi-winner districts. But they're still districts. Look up STV.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I believe you are confusing STV with various implementations of prop voting that use STV as a component. STV does not involve districts.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or, put differently, it involves only a single district. Some countries have several parallel STV elections in multiple districts.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, STV has districts. They're bigger and multi-winner, but they're still districts and thus must be drawn fairly.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

easier to fix the current system then change completely

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Define "fix" though. I'd much rather obviate a problem than wrestle it

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Redrawing the lines is still gerrymandering. No matter how hightech the lines will be unfair to someone. STV actually fixes the issue.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

No it doesn't. It only fixes proportionality.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But STV does not fix gerrymandering. Multi seat constituencies and/or proportional compensating mandate does.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The VRA mandates minority majority districts. Any simplification like this one that doesn't take VRA compliance into account is incomplete.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The VRA says that you can't draw lines to dilute minority voting power. Minority majority is how some states handle that, but not required.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Could you explain the concept of "minority majority" district?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

District where > 50% of the voters are of a certain minority. The idea being if 1/3 of the state is Hispanic, then...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1/3 of the districts should be majority Hispanic, or close to it. IANAL though and it is more complex.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I get it. I still see numerous problems. One, it still requires that a political body decides which stats are important for ratio, eg. race

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Two, it doesn't address how big that majority should be. Does it mean that you can make 3 districts with just barely 51% hispanics?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That would lower the bar for a party to overcome and supposed block-voting that minority population would do. Only need to flip 1% of them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's the law and I doubt it gets superseded any time soon. As long as it is the law, ignoring it in these things is a waste of time.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Okay, but that's an argument for "you're probably not going to change this". I want to talk, "how should we change this".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, there are cases about packing and stacking regarding just the percentages you mention. Lots of court history there.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The percentage is part of a question, not an assertion about something that actually happened.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think the point of that district was so they could win one seat instead of losing two.

9 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 3

Nope, Both the earmuff district and the district inside it vote for democrats. They win both districts regardless.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nope. You gotta go west of the road connecting the earmuffs to find a pro-GOP majority. Its Chicago afterall.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yah from what I saw on John Oliver the "earmuff" district works in their favour.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

So does that make it less illegal?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

From the John Oliver video (you really should watch it), I think it depends on the state? Here it was legal and beneficial to the community.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

No. But JO is hella liberal so he's OK with it, despite it being a racially motivated redrawning. And look, I'm liberal too but...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

...you can't just complain when the other party does it.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The two ear muffs represent two hispanic neighborhoods, and the middle is am African American neighborhood. Democrats would win the seat 1/

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Either way in all likely hood, but districts were drawn to represent the communities themselves, rather than sections on a map 2/

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

True, but it is just reinforcing the deep "race" divide that plagues the US. Better to just ignore ethnic backgrounds when drawing.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

But in instances where more effective representation can be based on racial groupings, it should be considered. It's too complex an issue

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They can't because the VRA requires majority-minority districts

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Its not race, its ethnicity and background. Blacks and Latinos generally have different backgrounds and experiences than one another.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Hence the " ". But that does not mean they need to have different people representing them, that's just reinforcing the divide.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Isn't that district you consider to be an example of a "bad" district hailed as one of the best ones in reality?

9 years ago | Likes 229 Dislikes 12

But why is that?

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

tl;dr - the two communities in both earmuffs are demographically similar, and sharing a representative helps them meet their needs.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It creates a strong voice for two hispanic communities so they're actually listened to instead of melted into separate districts.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's one community, that's why there's the weird shape

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The two sides are two latino neighbourhoods I believe, and the one in the middle is african american. This way both communities get 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Because humans don't live in conveniently sized boxes.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's designed to ensure those Latino districts can get a Latino rep who theoretically will better represent them

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

That's ridiculous

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Seems like it was designed to keep them from being represented fairly. but that's JMO.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Which they are you referring to in this instance?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

representation. If drawn otherwise one community might be left without. Both also vote Democrat, so that isn't the reason for split. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

So why not one large district

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Congressional districts have to have roughly 700k people in them, unless the state is not big enough to afford the additional district.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Districts are divided by population. That many people have to have two districts.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

because then there would be zero hispanic reps.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...because then one community would be left without a representative?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Could a representative not represent both politically?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Preach it!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Only by politicians and district drawers (whatever we call those) because it makes a district balanced heavily to favor one race.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Now obviously this does help someone. The community in the district. But it's still drawn to be self serving and unbalanced.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Why don't you just get your shit together and do it like every sophisticated democracy everywhere and use fractions. So vote in the whole

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

state, then rep gets 40% dem get 40% green gets 10% and lib 10% of the votes. in a state with 20 seats to distribute dem and rep get 8 each

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

and green and lib get 2 each. And in this group the registered voters for the party vote the sequence of the candidates. You're welcome...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who gets to decide who qualifies as a Rep or Dem? Who decides WHICH Rep or Dem gets the seat?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The same way it is done during the president votes, you can register as dem or rep or lib etc? Or do you have a buttload of independent?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That would be wildly complicated in a large state like cali. You would be asking a person to pick their top 40 liberal representatives

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I dunno, it is a pretty bogus way of making it contiguous

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 14

That district is a very closely demographically related district. It may look weird, but its the same community.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

It really is a Catch 22.... There is no one good way there. Each has flaws.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That's a weak argument. It's just two seperate hispanic communities someone connected with a little line. It's not "the same community...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

That's assuming the separated areas don't interact because of the physical divide. They aren't across the world, they're across a road.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

..." at all except for on a district map. North side and south side are not the same group even if they have the same skin tone if half...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

...a damn city seperates them.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Depends on who your asking, technically is combines two seperate haspanic districts that wouldn't get a voice otherwise but at the same P1

9 years ago | Likes 61 Dislikes 2

The goal is to create a few districts that are heavily favored by your political rival to win thereby diluting their influence

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

...in many more districts that you are now favored only slightly but comfortably to win.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Or have preferential voting where winning parties often have to take on some of the policies of closest losing rivals to be most competitive

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

What if we made a camps out in the middle of nowhere then moved a minority there, say the Japanese. Would that be a good idea?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

I think you may of misconstrued what i was saying, i wasant advocating for either side. Just that the issue is a bit more nuanced

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

time you have to ask if modifying districts to give a group that otherwise wouldn't get a rep, is still democratic dipite good intentions

9 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 2

That is what redistricting should be about, making sure everyone gets a voice.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 10

I'm kind of conflicted at this because people not having a say in things is bad but adjusting things so a low population gets an equal say--

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Seems wrong as well as more people with the same opinion should naturally have more say shouldn't they? Having 20% of the population---

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But the amount of voice you get changes based on the districting. Should scientologists get their own district?

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

Are you implying voiceless hispanics are in any way similar to Scientologists?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

use a population group that makes up somewhere in the .01 to .05% percent of population range?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That's why we have bicameral legislature.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Religion should not factor a single iota in providing a sect of people a voice, it's a political voice, and while religious belief does 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Could you try that with a group that makes up as large of a portion of the population as hispanics? or does it only work when when you 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0