Fight in NJ over redistricting

[[DHT]Osiris]

Who programs the machine to interpret GIS data?

Anyone, opensource the code so anyone can look and see it's legitimately fair.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Anyone, opensource the code so anyone can look and see it's legitimately fair.

I know this sounds silly but it’s too complicated. 99.9% of the people out there will not understand that concept, they’ll harp on some minor flaw that under the proper completely unrealistic conditions will favor one party over another.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I know this sounds silly but it’s too complicated. 99.9% of the people out there will not understand that concept, they’ll harp on some minor this that under the proper completely unrealistic conditions will favor one party over another.

So exactly like we do now? I'd rather it be fair and people bitch than unfair with people bitching.

 

[repoman0]

I know this sounds silly but it’s too complicated. 99.9% of the people out there will not understand that concept, they’ll harp on some minor this that under the proper completely unrealistic conditions will favor one party over another.

The government or a non-partisan research institution/FFRDC-type entity (or collection of them) should write up a digestible 5-10 page report with simulations on how districts would be drawn under certain scenarios along with a set of fairness metrics that people would understand. If that's too hard for people to understand then too bad.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I like the idea of randomly picking people from the voter logs to get together and make the maps, have them redrawn every other election or something.
Give enough population data and general rules to the maps make sense, keep specific demographics and big data out

 

[kage69]

Yep, the right answer is for independent districting commissions in every state. Until that happens the right answer is for Democrats to gerrymander things to the maximum extent possible.

This.

I don't like the notion of adopting republican tactics, but in some cases you do actually need to fight fire with fire. In this case, failure to do so will result in republicans solidifying their grip on power in a way so those commissions and other efforts will never happen in meaningful numbers or application. It's an issue that has a "point of no return," and we need to stay away from that point by any legal and peaceful means necessary. I find myself able to go along with it because unlike the republicans, I actually have faith in the majority of dems pushing for an independent structure/management regarding districts. They already walked that talk in California. The GOP however has zero credibility, not to mention a litany of offenses against voters and election integrity almost nationwide.

Republicans think ranked-choice voting might help them weather the blowback, yet look at Bruce Poliquin (R) in Maine sue for a new election because he lost, citing ranked-choice voting violated the equal protection clause and the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Funny stuff. The contempt republican politicians have for democracy never ceases to amaze me.

 

[dainthomas]

Who programs the machine to interpret GIS data?

No one. There are tools within ArcGis that will create polygons with equal counts. The only data loaded into the software is a single point for every person, with no other fields.

 

[nakedfrog]

Who programs the machine to interpret GIS data?

To truly be independent, it should be an impartial third party, from another country. Clearly we just outsource it to Russia. And we'll save money too!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Who programs the machine to interpret GIS data?

Probably get outsourced knowing how corporate America works. So probably Russia.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No one. There are tools within ArcGis that will create polygons with equal counts. The only data loaded into the software is a single point for every person, with no other fields.

No normal person is going to understand what you just said

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans are the party of personal responsibility. That means they are highly moral and will accept responsibility and pay back for any nasty past deeds. And until they do all effort should be made to destroy them mercilessly and without compromise. As people of the Bible they know that as ye sow so shall ye reap. Take your pick. Nothing can stand before the Will of God, or moral outrage against justice is built into our genes.

 

[yllus]

So exactly like we do now? I'd rather it be fair and people bitch than unfair with people bitching.

I honestly haven't looked into this deeply, but I think Canada works around this by using independent commissions (usually headed by some judicial figures) and requiring use of major geographic features.

Winner take all elections mess it all up anyways though. ElFenix's method is the only really fair one.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The government or a non-partisan research institution/FFRDC-type entity (or collection of them) should write up a digestible 5-10 page report with simulations on how districts would be drawn under certain scenarios along with a set of fairness metrics that people would understand. If that's too hard for people to understand then too bad.

But that’s my point 1/3rd our population thinks the CBO is stacked with Democrats, they also think the Fed is run by Democrats.
No matter how smart or open this program is constructed 1/3rd the population will think it’s a liberal takeover. The vast majority of the other 2/3rd won’t understand it.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are multiple gerrymandering cases making their way to the SCOTUS. The one wrt Maryland is interesting in that the lawyers are representing the rights of their GOP clients rather than the broader GOP goal to gerrymander the living shit out of the Dems-

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/broad-review-of-partisan-gerrymandering-urged

Cases about WI & NC are also pending. The ruling against gerrymandering by the PA SCOTUS is also a precedent of sorts.

 

[JTsyo]

What’s unreasonable about it?

It's not that it's unreasonable but that it'll lock in Democratic control. We might be in the situation later that we're in now but with the parties flipped.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's not that it's unreasonable but that it'll lock in Democratic control. We might be in the situation later that we're in now but with the parties flipped.

And if the parties flipped, do you have any doubt that the Republicans would immediately redraw the lines?

I could ask you why you're so passionate about protecting the Republican Party in NJ as opposed to improving the quality of representation that NJ residents and workers receive. There are things that could be done to improve that, that would weaken democrats, but not necessarily strengthen Republicans, like ranked choice voting or more public financial support for 3rd party candidates.

But let's take a simpler question. You're arguing that NJ should draw its maps more favorably for Republicans during a time when the Republican states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered. Isn't that analogous to insisting the NJ appoint presidential electors in proportion to the statewide results, when the rest of the country (with a couple of exceptions) appoints all their electors to the victor?

By forcing NJ to be more fair, you're ignoring that the rest of the country is slanted in the other direction, and increasing Republican representation in state they don't control only exacerbates the situation.

 

[sdifox]

No normal person is going to understand what you just said

It also makes horrible districts. Much better to stick to municipal boundaries, split only if you need to.


Say municipalitues A,B and C form a line with 500k people each. Electoral district is 750k, then two districts consisting of A and half of B is one district and C and the remainder of B is another district. Simple. Political affiliation should not be a factor

 

[fskimospy]

It also makes horrible districts. Much better to stick to municipal boundaries, split only if you need to.


Say municipalitues A,B and C form a line with 500k people each. Electoral district is 750k, then two districts consisting of A and half of B is one district and C and the remainder of B is another district. Simple. Political affiliation should not be a factor

The whole district thing just seems to be a bad idea. Make it proportional representation for every state.

 

[sdifox]

The whole district thing just seems to be a bad idea. Make it proportional representation for every state.

why? each district elect their own representative. Proportional representation may not be all that good given that the party decided the ordering of representatives.

 

[fskimospy]

why? each district elect their own representative. Proportional representation may not be all that good given that the party decided the ordering of representatives.

It’s not like the representatives aren’t selected by the party now for the most part. Considering how corrupt the district model has been so far it seems like it’s best done away with.

No model is perfect but I think PR is the best if a bad lot.

 

[theeedude]

So Republicans will gerrymander their states, but Democrats won't? Is it the "when they go low we go high" bullshit again? The right strategy is "when they go low, we bury them first, then we go high."

 

[Jhhnn]

So Republicans will gerrymander their states, but Democrats won't? Is it the "when they go low we go high" bullshit again? The right strategy is "when they go low, we bury them first, then we go high."

Dems can't afford to be seen as undermining democracy, which is what you suggest. When we do, we're really are "just as bad", regardless of our motives. If we don't hold to the principles of democracy then we won't have it.

 

[dainthomas]

It also makes horrible districts. Much better to stick to municipal boundaries, split only if you need to.


Say municipalitues A,B and C form a line with 500k people each. Electoral district is 750k, then two districts consisting of A and half of B is one district and C and the remainder of B is another district. Simple. Political affiliation should not be a factor

I'd rather have horrible and impartial than horrible and extremely biased.

 

[mect]

Dems can't afford to be seen as undermining democracy, which is what you suggest. When we do, we're really are "just as bad", regardless of our motives. If we don't hold to the principles of democracy then we won't have it.

And if we take the high road while allowing one side to undermine democracy, then we also won't have it.

 

[sdifox]

I'd rather have horrible and impartial than horrible and extremely biased.

If Canada can do it fairly, so can USA.