Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The case against gerrymandering rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/25/democracy-wins-b...

I'd love to see the ability to draw district maps taken away from the politicians. The only significant advantage of a two party system such as we have here in the US is that, in theory, it should force both parties to move toward the middle. However, when you allow the parties to create "safe" districts where the other party has no reasonable chance of winning, that results in the district being dominated by more extreme candidates instead of moderates.

The idea that it makes any sense at all for politicians to draw their own district maps is absurd. It does violate the equal protection clause and it needs to be made illegal by the supreme court. Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.

18 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
sfox wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/25/democracy-wins-b...

I'd love to see the ability to draw district maps taken away from the politicians. The only significant advantage of a two party system such as we have here in the US is that, in theory, it should force both parties to move toward the middle. However, when you allow the parties to create "safe" districts where the other party has no reasonable chance of winning, that results in the district being dominated by more extreme candidates instead of moderates.

The idea that it makes any sense at all for politicians to draw their own district maps is absurd. It does violate the equal protection clause and it needs to be made illegal by the supreme court. Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.



I grew up in a state which was so gerrymandered that it provided one party 25 years or so of one party rule. It took massive corruption scandals hitting the news in the late 80s but finally public outcry became so intense that the needed political reforms were made.

You'd hope that 2016 USA could do better.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would be impressively dissapointed if anyone in the spectrum not directly benefiting from it came out in fsvor of gerrymwndering.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.


Are you serious or trolling here ? Do you really think if Hillary gets in office that she will get the ball rolling on this ? I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Shadrach wrote:
I would be impressively dissapointed if anyone in the spectrum not directly benefiting from it came out in fsvor of gerrymwndering.

It is one thing to come out strongly against it or to say nothing.

It is another thing to actually do something about it when given a chance to make a difference.

In other words a lot of extremists on the right and on the left will do nothing about it because they like it. They get to vote for extremists that they otherwise would not get to vote for. Or, they are those extremists.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
sfox wrote:
Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.


Are you serious or trolling here ? Do you really think if Hillary gets in office that she will get the ball rolling on this ? I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.

Hillary has nothing to do with this, other than picking a new member of the supreme court, so I'm not sure what point you think you are making. Liberal judges are much more open to broad / flexible interpretations of laws and the constitution than conservatives are, therefore adding another liberal justice (instead of a moderate like Merrick Garland who the Republicans could have confirmed) will greatly increase the chance that SCOTUS acts strongly against gerrymandering in their next term.

I suspect, however, that the Republicans will blink and confirm Garland as it becomes clear they are not only going to lose the presidency but also the Senate. Even so, I suspect Garland would also be in favor of restriction gerrymandering, just not so strongly in favor of it as a more liberal justice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.


They both do: Look at congressional districts in both Missouri and Illinois, each carefully crafted to make the percentage of congressmen and percentage of votes be pretty different from each other.

However, I'd expect democrats to be more likely to pass anti gerrymandering laws, and liberals in court to make more decisions that make it harder to gerrymander overall, simply because the way votes concentrate between urban and rural areas make it far easier for republican to control more states: We are looking at an election where Hillary is ahead by 5-10% nationally, and probably winning by more than that in the electoral college, and yet no poll would expects the democrats to come close to winning the house.

Back to Missouri: 8 congressional districts. Polls that put the presidential election at +2% for Trump. Congressional polls? 6-2 split!

In this case, gerrymandering is a zero sum game, so someone is losing, and in 2016, it's the democrats.
6 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.


They both do: Look at congressional districts in both Missouri and Illinois, each carefully crafted to make the percentage of congressmen and percentage of votes be pretty different from each other.

However, I'd expect democrats to be more likely to pass anti gerrymandering laws, and liberals in court to make more decisions that make it harder to gerrymander overall, simply because the way votes concentrate between urban and rural areas make it far easier for republican to control more states: We are looking at an election where Hillary is ahead by 5-10% nationally, and probably winning by more than that in the electoral college, and yet no poll would expects the democrats to come close to winning the house.

Back to Missouri: 8 congressional districts. Polls that put the presidential election at +2% for Trump. Congressional polls? 6-2 split!

In this case, gerrymandering is a zero sum game, so someone is losing, and in 2016, it's the democrats.

This is exactly why we have to rely on the courts to fix the problem. Any time a political party has enough power to change the laws they have no incentive to do so because they can use the laws to their own advantage.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/25/democracy-wins-b...

I'd love to see the ability to draw district maps taken away from the politicians. The only significant advantage of a two party system such as we have here in the US is that, in theory, it should force both parties to move toward the middle. However, when you allow the parties to create "safe" districts where the other party has no reasonable chance of winning, that results in the district being dominated by more extreme candidates instead of moderates.

The idea that it makes any sense at all for politicians to draw their own district maps is absurd. It does violate the equal protection clause and it needs to be made illegal by the supreme court. Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.



When I was living in Australia, people there would ask me what I most liked about Australia. There is a LOT to like there. But the one thing I would import to the US is the Australian Electoral Commission. Or at least the way they draw up electoral districts. They try to make them competitive, reasonably geographically compact (no 40 mile stretches along the center line of a highway to connect two distant places into one district without including the stuff between them), and otherwise coherent.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/25/democracy-wins-b...

I'd love to see the ability to draw district maps taken away from the politicians. The only significant advantage of a two party system such as we have here in the US is that, in theory, it should force both parties to move toward the middle. However, when you allow the parties to create "safe" districts where the other party has no reasonable chance of winning, that results in the district being dominated by more extreme candidates instead of moderates.

The idea that it makes any sense at all for politicians to draw their own district maps is absurd. It does violate the equal protection clause and it needs to be made illegal by the supreme court. Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.



When I was living in Australia, people there would ask me what I most liked about Australia. There is a LOT to like there. But the one thing I would import to the US is the Australian Electoral Commission. Or at least the way they draw up electoral districts. They try to make them competitive, reasonably geographically compact (no 40 mile stretches along the center line of a highway to connect two distant places into one district without including the stuff between them), and otherwise coherent.

The UK boundary commission works OK. There is some argument but nothing compared to the USA.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
sfox wrote:
Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.


Are you serious or trolling here ? Do you really think if Hillary gets in office that she will get the ball rolling on this ? I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.


They do, but your side enjoys it more right now, so there's both a temporary partisan advantage and the ability to appear to take a principled stand against corruption available. This is exactly the sort of thing our system of harnessing people's awfulness to check other people's awfulness is well-equipped to incentivize.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
wifwendell wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/25/democracy-wins-b...

I'd love to see the ability to draw district maps taken away from the politicians. The only significant advantage of a two party system such as we have here in the US is that, in theory, it should force both parties to move toward the middle. However, when you allow the parties to create "safe" districts where the other party has no reasonable chance of winning, that results in the district being dominated by more extreme candidates instead of moderates.

The idea that it makes any sense at all for politicians to draw their own district maps is absurd. It does violate the equal protection clause and it needs to be made illegal by the supreme court. Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.



When I was living in Australia, people there would ask me what I most liked about Australia. There is a LOT to like there. But the one thing I would import to the US is the Australian Electoral Commission. Or at least the way they draw up electoral districts. They try to make them competitive, reasonably geographically compact (no 40 mile stretches along the center line of a highway to connect two distant places into one district without including the stuff between them), and otherwise coherent.


Queensland was where I was referring to. Things do get fixed with adequate will.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
sfox wrote:
Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.


Are you serious or trolling here ? Do you really think if Hillary gets in office that she will get the ball rolling on this ? I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.


If you believe Democrats and Republicans like gerrymandering equally then you're wrong.

I'll offer you a challenge. I'll show articles where Democrats try to eliminate gerrymandered districts somewhere. In return you present articles where Republicans have tried to eliminate gerrymandered districts. Since they should be relevant to current events, the articles should be from the last 20 years or so.

Ready to play?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
sfox wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/25/democracy-wins-b...

I'd love to see the ability to draw district maps taken away from the politicians. The only significant advantage of a two party system such as we have here in the US is that, in theory, it should force both parties to move toward the middle. However, when you allow the parties to create "safe" districts where the other party has no reasonable chance of winning, that results in the district being dominated by more extreme candidates instead of moderates.

The idea that it makes any sense at all for politicians to draw their own district maps is absurd. It does violate the equal protection clause and it needs to be made illegal by the supreme court. Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.



Fortunately. Judges, of course, were created to revolutionize the government any time it inconveniences a party, but whatever. So we go from the lousy two party system to moving the middle toward those who can move the middle. Being able to settle unlimited populations dependent on the government anywhere you please is really going threaten the oligarchy's hegemony the same way Mike Tyson worries when you get in the ring with him with your hands zip tied behind you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrspank wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
sfox wrote:
Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.


Are you serious or trolling here ? Do you really think if Hillary gets in office that she will get the ball rolling on this ? I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.


If you believe Democrats and Republicans like gerrymandering equally then you're wrong.

I'll offer you a challenge. I'll show articles where Democrats try to eliminate gerrymandered districts somewhere. In return you present articles where Republicans have tried to eliminate gerrymandered districts. Since they should be relevant to current events, the articles should be from the last 20 years or so.

Ready to play?

If you go back 30 or 40 years, when the Democrats were the dominant political party, they were doing a heck of a lot of gerrymandering. The main difference now, however, is that the Republicans have taken it to extremes. I do not believe this is specifically a problem with the Republicans, it was just that the Republicans got the idea first back in 2010 to use computers to optimize voting districts to their best advantage.

The redistricting after the 2020 census is going to be a horrific mess if something isn't done about it before then, as both parties use all of the analytic data they have gathered over the last 10 years to maximize the districts to their advantage in the states each party controls at that time. I think this is just bad for politics in general if we don't fix it. It isn't a left or right issue, it is about maintaining a functioning political system.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
sfox wrote:
Fortunately Hillary will be able to pick a judge which should be enough to finally fix our stupid design of allowing the politicians to pick their constituents.


Are you serious or trolling here ? Do you really think if Hillary gets in office that she will get the ball rolling on this ? I hate to break the news sweetie, but both sides enjoy it.


If you believe Democrats and Republicans like gerrymandering equally then you're wrong.

I'll offer you a challenge. I'll show articles where Democrats try to eliminate gerrymandered districts somewhere. In return you present articles where Republicans have tried to eliminate gerrymandered districts. Since they should be relevant to current events, the articles should be from the last 20 years or so.

Ready to play?

If you go back 30 or 40 years, when the Democrats were the dominant political party, they were doing a heck of a lot of gerrymandering.


I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I'm almost 58, so you just hush your mouth, you young whipper-snapper! laugh
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrspank wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.


Session Democrats Republicans
85th (1957–1959) 232 203
86th (1959–1961) 282 153
87th (1961–1963) 264 173
88th (1963–1965) 260 175
89th (1965–1967) 295 140
90th (1967–1969) 248 187
91st (1969–1971) 243 192
92nd (1971–1973) 255 180
93rd (1973–1975) 243 192
94th (1975–1977) 291 144
95th (1977–1979) 292 143
96th (1979–1981) 279 156
97th (1981–1983) 243 192
98th (1983–1985) 269 166
99th (1985–1987) 255 180
100th (1987–1989) 258 177
101st (1989–1991) 262 173
102nd (1991–1993) 267 167
103rd (1993–1995) 258 176
104th (1995–1997) 206 228

You think 40 years of uninterrupted control of the House happened without gerrymandering?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.


Session Democrats Republicans
85th (1957–1959) 232 203
86th (1959–1961) 282 153
87th (1961–1963) 264 173
88th (1963–1965) 260 175
89th (1965–1967) 295 140
90th (1967–1969) 248 187
91st (1969–1971) 243 192
92nd (1971–1973) 255 180
93rd (1973–1975) 243 192
94th (1975–1977) 291 144
95th (1977–1979) 292 143
96th (1979–1981) 279 156
97th (1981–1983) 243 192
98th (1983–1985) 269 166
99th (1985–1987) 255 180
100th (1987–1989) 258 177
101st (1989–1991) 262 173
102nd (1991–1993) 267 167
103rd (1993–1995) 258 176
104th (1995–1997) 206 228

You think 40 years of uninterrupted control of the House happened without gerrymandering?


Sorry, but a period of party dominance in the House is not proof of gerrymandering. You'll need to do better than that. Some squiggly shaped districts controlled by Democrats for many years would be a good start.

EDIT: Actually, squiggly shaped districts aren't proof that a particular party benefits. Some gerrymandered districts are specifically drawn in a squiggly fashion to lump as many Democrats as possible into them. So giving up one district to make others more favorable to Republicans.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrspank wrote:
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.


Session Democrats Republicans
85th (1957–1959) 232 203
86th (1959–1961) 282 153
87th (1961–1963) 264 173
88th (1963–1965) 260 175
89th (1965–1967) 295 140
90th (1967–1969) 248 187
91st (1969–1971) 243 192
92nd (1971–1973) 255 180
93rd (1973–1975) 243 192
94th (1975–1977) 291 144
95th (1977–1979) 292 143
96th (1979–1981) 279 156
97th (1981–1983) 243 192
98th (1983–1985) 269 166
99th (1985–1987) 255 180
100th (1987–1989) 258 177
101st (1989–1991) 262 173
102nd (1991–1993) 267 167
103rd (1993–1995) 258 176
104th (1995–1997) 206 228

You think 40 years of uninterrupted control of the House happened without gerrymandering?


Sorry, but a period of party dominance in the House is not proof of gerrymandering. You'll need to do better than that. Some squiggly shaped districts controlled by Democrats for many years would be a good start.

I have a feeling that no matter what I say, you are going to deny that Democrats use gerrymandering and/or have used it heavily in the past.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.


Session Democrats Republicans
85th (1957–1959) 232 203
86th (1959–1961) 282 153
87th (1961–1963) 264 173
88th (1963–1965) 260 175
89th (1965–1967) 295 140
90th (1967–1969) 248 187
91st (1969–1971) 243 192
92nd (1971–1973) 255 180
93rd (1973–1975) 243 192
94th (1975–1977) 291 144
95th (1977–1979) 292 143
96th (1979–1981) 279 156
97th (1981–1983) 243 192
98th (1983–1985) 269 166
99th (1985–1987) 255 180
100th (1987–1989) 258 177
101st (1989–1991) 262 173
102nd (1991–1993) 267 167
103rd (1993–1995) 258 176
104th (1995–1997) 206 228

You think 40 years of uninterrupted control of the House happened without gerrymandering?


Sorry, but a period of party dominance in the House is not proof of gerrymandering. You'll need to do better than that. Some squiggly shaped districts controlled by Democrats for many years would be a good start.

I have a feeling that no matter what I say, you are going to deny that Democrats use gerrymandering and/or have used it heavily in the past.


I have heard, on a number of occasions, how Democrats and Republicans have both used and benefited from gerrymandered districts. While that may true, I don't believe both sides benefited equally.

If the reason for Democratic dominance in the House for 40 years was thanks in large part to gerrymandered districts, it should be easy to prove.

My assertion is that Republicans started catching up and, in fact, were able to gain the House majority thanks in large part to gerrymandered districts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.


Session Democrats Republicans
85th (1957–1959) 232 203
86th (1959–1961) 282 153
87th (1961–1963) 264 173
88th (1963–1965) 260 175
89th (1965–1967) 295 140
90th (1967–1969) 248 187
91st (1969–1971) 243 192
92nd (1971–1973) 255 180
93rd (1973–1975) 243 192
94th (1975–1977) 291 144
95th (1977–1979) 292 143
96th (1979–1981) 279 156
97th (1981–1983) 243 192
98th (1983–1985) 269 166
99th (1985–1987) 255 180
100th (1987–1989) 258 177
101st (1989–1991) 262 173
102nd (1991–1993) 267 167
103rd (1993–1995) 258 176
104th (1995–1997) 206 228

You think 40 years of uninterrupted control of the House happened without gerrymandering?


Sorry, but a period of party dominance in the House is not proof of gerrymandering. You'll need to do better than that. Some squiggly shaped districts controlled by Democrats for many years would be a good start.

I have a feeling that no matter what I say, you are going to deny that Democrats use gerrymandering and/or have used it heavily in the past.

Last time round the Democrats got a million more votes and less seats.
Squiggly shaped seats are often the way voters you've lost anyway are kept out of seats you need to win. They are a symptom of gerrymandering, but are not necessary won by the gerrymanderers.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sfox wrote:
mrspank wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to prove that to me. I believe Democrats have been guilty of gerrymandering, but you'll have to prove Democrats did it at a pace greater than Republicans.

Partisan much?

Sometimes you younger people astound me. All you talk about are the great leaps in technology being made and how it changes everything so radically ... yet you refuse to connect it to real life.

Look, the reason the Republicans' gerrymandering efforts have been better and more expansive than the Democrats' RECENTLY is that wonderful technology you boast about. Demographics are fairly new to the scene, and the Democrats were able to use them effectively in the 1960s-1980s when they were in the majority in most state houses and Congress. But as the Republicans came into power in the 1990s-present, they were gifted these incredible computers that practically can predict how individuals vote. Combine that with savvy political instincts, and the Republicans have now made gerrymandering a precise science.

But both parties do it. Stop being a partisan and smell the coffee: politicians live to fuck us over and get money thrown at them by rich people.


Younger people?! I'm 50 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say Democrats didn't use gerrymandering. I asked for proof they did it at an equal or greater rate than Republicans 30 or 40 years ago.

So let's see the proof.


Session Democrats Republicans
85th (1957–1959) 232 203
86th (1959–1961) 282 153
87th (1961–1963) 264 173
88th (1963–1965) 260 175
89th (1965–1967) 295 140
90th (1967–1969) 248 187
91st (1969–1971) 243 192
92nd (1971–1973) 255 180
93rd (1973–1975) 243 192
94th (1975–1977) 291 144
95th (1977–1979) 292 143
96th (1979–1981) 279 156
97th (1981–1983) 243 192
98th (1983–1985) 269 166
99th (1985–1987) 255 180
100th (1987–1989) 258 177
101st (1989–1991) 262 173
102nd (1991–1993) 267 167
103rd (1993–1995) 258 176
104th (1995–1997) 206 228

You think 40 years of uninterrupted control of the House happened without gerrymandering?


One would have to look at the actual data, unless you feel gerrymandering is so absolutely important that there is no way to win without manipulating your constituency into being less representative.

Edit: added quote to make it clear who I was responding too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.