Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

I don't even know which "stupid elections thread" this goes in (feel free to move this post):

Top 10 Most Gerrymandered Districts in the Union

Some of these are truly impressive.

[Pacobird]

Gerrymandering is a necessary consequence of geographical Parliamentary systems being flatly inferior to policy/party-based ones.

[Mongrel]

Oh I'd love to that statement justified.

[TA]

Yeah, that could definitely use some backing up.

[Pacobird]

Let's say, for instance, you have a city that is 67% Red and 33% Blue, and all the residents are spread without regard to political affiliation.  There are enough people in this city to have 3 Representatives. 

In a strict, non-gerrymandered geographic setup, the odds are good that all three of the reps are Red; because the people are spread out without regard to political affiliation, the blues get crushed in all three districts two-to-one despite being a full third of this rather large city.  So, in order to benefit from this pretty huge enclave of Blue voters, Congressional Dems gerrymander districts in an attempt to shore up enough Blue voters to secure a seat.  The collective monocle of the rest of the country pops out but the Blues in this city actually get to send somebody who reflects their values and beliefs to Washington.

Note that if we elected Representatives based on party, not geographical area, this would be unnecessary.

[Catloaf]

So, if we just self-segregate based on values, we don't have to have gerrymandering!!!

[Pacobird]

That's just it, though; we already do that, which is why gerrymandered districts look the way they do.  It may look goofy on paper (literally) but to just draw large squares and say "you are represented by this guy and you by that guy" is what got the British in trouble when they were leaving the Middle East~

[Mongrel]

Well, that method of districting isn't really inherently related to Parliamentary systems per se (except maybe the original British system, due to district relation to estates and landholdings, but even then there little left of the old system nowadays).

I get what you're saying, but in practice allowing gerrymandering tends to give a greenlight to folks to ceaselessly fool with boundaries for their own advantage. Plus as the article rightly points out, demographics are not static and what may seem well-intentioned at one point in time may later become a disaster. I'm not saying the LOL IRAQ IS A COUNTRY model isn't without it's faults, but I still prefer it to the alternative.

It probably also would have been better to use a less statist/tribal example of the consequences of not gerrymandering. I mean, a map of some purported "Kurdistan" or similar, would still look like a more-or-less contiguous landmass. In fact the only states I can think of that look similar to these gerrymandered districts are places like Palestine, where having the territory shaped as it is is a total disaster.

[Pacobird]

The "fooling with boundaries" is not done arbitrarily; they change when the demographics of particular regions change.  If all the Republicans happen to move across town, should their representation change?  What is the problem with, say, the gerrymandered Florida district that was set up as the "black seat" if said district actually has a bunch of black people in it?

Also, Palestine is a disaster because it is an apartheid state, not a gerrymandered one.

[Classic]

I'd kind of thought lumping dissimilar tribes together was an attempt to neuter the local political power of the emerging puppet state.

But maybe that's just because I'm liking the word neuter lately.

[Disposable Ninja]

Let's say, for instance, you have a city that is 67% Red and 33% Blue, and all the residents are spread without regard to political affiliation.  There are enough people in this city to have 3 Representatives. 

In a strict, non-gerrymandered geographic setup, the odds are good that all three of the reps are Red; because the people are spread out without regard to political affiliation, the blues get crushed in all three districts two-to-one despite being a full third of this rather large city.  So, in order to benefit from this pretty huge enclave of Blue voters, Congressional Dems gerrymander districts in an attempt to shore up enough Blue voters to secure a seat.  The collective monocle of the rest of the country pops out but the Blues in this city actually get to send somebody who reflects their values and beliefs to Washington.

On the other hand, couldn't gerrymandering just as easily be used to usurp power from specific demographics? Like: cut up a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly liberal/conservative and merge the pieces with surrounding conservative/liberal districts.

[Mongrel]

Yeah, that's basically what's always been the trouble with Gerrymandering. Sure you can use it to force representation for an under-represented group, but that's essentially imposing the views of the electoral offices on local constituents from on high on who should be represented and how. It's every bit as arrogant as the "draw a square method" and a lot more needlessly complex.

Assuming you're okay with segregationist politics (which is in and of itself a can of worms), giving "the black people" a "Black seat" might sound okay, but in practise it either promotes social silos, or is a complete disaster. Look at the Illinois seat where they lumped all the "Hispanics" together. In reality the two communities are quite distinct - one mostly Puerto-Rican, the other mostly Mexican - with each having different concerns.

Also, yes, I know that Palestine's primary problems are not the geographical ones, but the geography REALLY DOESN'T HELP.

[Cait]

Thinking about fair representation and gerrymandered districts and all made me recall something I read about recently in my studies: Cumulative Voting Rights. It's one of the methods in use for stockholders to elect directors, and essentially the way it works is that each share of stock grants you a number of votes equal to the number of positions to be filled, and you can spread your votes out or concentrate them at your discretion. The N people who get the largest number of votes get the positions. The math essentially works out so that the person with 60% of the votes can only guarantee control over 60% of the seats; I'm not sure how well it would extrapolate in practice to voting for representatives, but it's an interesting idea.

[Pacobird]

On the other hand, couldn't gerrymandering just as easily be used to usurp power from specific demographics? Like: cut up a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly liberal/conservative and merge the pieces with surrounding conservative/liberal districts.

If you are the party in power looking to redistrict an area where your base is the majority (provided you aren't talking about a HUGE majority like 3 or 4-to-1, which is very rare), it's in your interest to redistrict the opposition into one district so as to make the other districts monolithic bastions of incumbency, rather than dilute them and promote any kind of vulnerability.

This is, as I understand it, how it's usually done.  At least, I'm pretty sure that's what happened in a few of the examples cited; the Murtha PA district that turned Republican was actually set up by Republicans to isolate union voters.

I realize this might sound like I'm contradicting my initial statement, but I think it makes sense if you consider both parties complicit in redistricting; it really is in the interests of both parties to promote incumbency.

Assuming you're okay with segregationist politics (which is in and of itself a can of worms), giving "the black people" a "Black seat" might sound okay, but in practise it either promotes social silos, or is a complete disaster. Look at the Illinois seat where they lumped all the "Hispanics" together. In reality the two communities are quite distinct - one mostly Puerto-Rican, the other mostly Mexican - with each having different concerns.

I think the Puerto Ricans and Mexicans would agree the current situation is preferable to the 7-digit Chicago Latino community simply not being represented in Congress.

Say they get split and the Mexicans get put in a solidly Blue district with Limousine Liberals from Evanston and Hyde Park.  They get to elect a Democrat and they may even bring more bodies to the polls than the suburbanites, but who do you really think is going to play kingmaker here?

Thinking about fair representation and gerrymandered districts and all made me recall something I read about recently in my studies: Cumulative Voting Rights. It's one of the methods in use for stockholders to elect directors, and essentially the way it works is that each share of stock grants you a number of votes equal to the number of positions to be filled, and you can spread your votes out or concentrate them at your discretion. The N people who get the largest number of votes get the positions. The math essentially works out so that the person with 60% of the votes can only guarantee control over 60% of the seats; I'm not sure how well it would extrapolate in practice to voting for representatives, but it's an interesting idea.

That's how it's done in a number of civil law nations, and is what I'm proposing.

Also, yes, I know that Palestine's primary problems are not the geographical ones, but the geography REALLY DOESN'T HELP.

Palestine is so fucked up as a direct result of specific Israeli policy decisions that I would submit it is impossible to tell how much of the problem is those decisions and how much is based on other factors.

[Mongrel]

I was hoping someone else might come in here with a different viewpoint, rather than us just going back and forth, but I don't think that's going to happen. Oh well.

I do agree that a more nuanced system, be it partially-proportional rep, cumulative voting rights or whatever is better than blanket districting or first-past-the-post systems, but the time for such reforms does not seem to have come to North America yet (no matter how badly they may be needed).

In the absence of significant reform, I think I'll stick with the situation that imposes a coldly unfair fairness, rather than one that tries to pretend to be fair, but enables all kinds of high-minded (and low-minded) manipulation.


***

Anyway, Interesting National Review article that dissects the differences between 1994-95 and 2010-11.

It raises points that argue that the subtle differences between then and now are more important than the obvious broad similarities. Yeah, it's NR, but it's still worth the read.

[Pacobird]

I generally find the hardest truism for modern liberals to accept is that neutral policies reinforce existing power structures through their own inaction.  I sort of take this as the core premise of white privilege.

[Mongrel]

I don't disagree with that statement at all. I just disagree completely on your choice of how to address it.

It's cute that you're trying to frame this as a repeat of the affirmative action debate though.

[Pacobird]

If gerrymandering is a tool that, among other things, is explicitly used to enforce the VRA, I don't see the problem in saying "gerrymandering is useful as a means of promoting representation of minorities in positions of power", which is basically the argument* for affirmative action.

Anyway, if you want to get back on track here, I guess I'd reiterate my original point: gerrymandering results in more representative voting districts than strict geographic parcelling.  I wouldn't say it's perfect by any means but it doesn't have to be.






*the REAL argument, not this post-Bakke bullshit about "diversity" and "multiculturalism" where it's only okay to help minorities succeed if white people explicitly benefit in some way

[Pacobird]

Oh, also, thanks for the NRO article.  It was a good read and I see most of his points but I'd quibble with this, in particular:

Sixth, the new Republican majority is less factionalized than the old one. The moderate contingent was much larger in 1995, though it was declining even then. Journalists said that Gingrich would have a hard time managing the new conservative members of Congress — the “revolutionaries” — just as they are now saying that Boehner will have his hands full with the new congressmen from the tea parties. But House Republicans have been operationally in sync with the tea parties since the start of the Obama presidency, uniformly opposing both the stimulus and Obamacare and almost unanimously opposing cap-and-trade and card check as well.

I am not gonna go all GOP IS GOING TO TEAR ITSELF APART because realpolitik > all, but at the end of the day, the tea parties see themselves having to go R for the same reasons unions and gays have to go D: it's the only game in town.  The real fight will be between people who want economic policies/spending cuts that Congress will be unable to enact and the traditional religious base that still votes R based on social issues the other people could care less about, but has been quietly slipping to the Left out of concerns over corporate power and the environment.

[Thad]

I generally find the hardest truism for modern liberals to accept is that neutral policies reinforce existing power structures through their own inaction.  I sort of take this as the core premise of white privilege.

A bit vague and trolly, but I'll buy the argument that gerrymandering is not inherently evil, it's just generally abused.  Don't hate the game, hate the player, as it were.

Shit sure does hop around here when you show up, Paco; I appreciate these chats.  Always nice to have a raging moderate who is capable of backing his shit up, and often does.