What does "Not Gerrymandered" look like?

[oxmixmudd]

I'm sure we'll be arguing soon but never forget you're still a friend.

I will do my best, but frequent reminders might be required

[CivilDiscourse]

And now to my blunder. Yes - my bad. I will admit my point would have been much better made had I picked an example that actually exists.

Nevertheless, gerrymandering/not gerrymandering is not about giving/taking the voice to/of minorities. It is about retaining power even when the in-power party is losing ground with their electorate, perhaps because their slate of candidates is lackluster or vulnerable in some way to a loss in a pure majority vote situation. Your post, and several other posts in this thread, seem to me to downplay the problem with gerrymandering by emphasizing that even non-gerrymandered districts can silence the voice of an out-of-power party.

If I misunderstood the intent of your post in that regard, my apologies.

Jim

Your definition doesn't really help there. I would also point out your definition is incomplete. If we imagine a scenario where Alpha and Zeta give the redistricting over to a 3rd party, and Zeta bribes that third party, that third party could create a situation where Zeta, being forever out of power, now has a majority of seats in the legislature. This would also be a gerrymander, and would not be about the "in-power party" retaining power, it would be about the "out-power part" gaining power.

My question is to highlight a problem. Districting is artificial, no matter how you define it. And I think that's an important point. Because with the exception of extreme situation, you have to define the contrast. This means you have to be able to articulate what the "default" position is.

This becomes important because many are advocating for a 3rd party to create maps, so as to stop gerrymandering. But, those maps still have to be built, and they have to be built with some goal in mind, because without a goal in mind, someone can put a goal in place. I guarantee you that the "perfectly non-gerrymandered" examples I gave would be soundly rejected if proposed.

[oxmixmudd]

Your definition doesn't really help there. I would also point out your definition is incomplete. If we imagine a scenario where Alpha and Zeta give the redistricting over to a 3rd party, and Zeta bribes that third party, that third party could create a situation where Zeta, being forever out of power, now has a majority of seats in the legislature. This would also be a gerrymander, and would not be about the "in-power party" retaining power, it would be about the "out-power part" gaining power.

My question is to highlight a problem. Districting is artificial, no matter how you define it. And I think that's an important point. Because with the exception of extreme situation, you have to define the contrast. This means you have to be able to articulate what the "default" position is.

This becomes important because many are advocating for a 3rd party to create maps, so as to stop gerrymandering. But, those maps still have to be built, and they have to be built with some goal in mind, because without a goal in mind, someone can put a goal in place. I guarantee you that the "perfectly non-gerrymandered" examples I gave would be soundly rejected if proposed.

The elephant in the room is that gerrymandering is used to hold onto power. It works, regardless of what sort special cases might exist that could cause it to do something else. And both parties are guilty of trying to leverage it to gain unfair advantage. My point was primarily to illustrate how and why it can be used to accomplish said goal.

Knowing how it works we can then analyse whatever distracting plan is employed to see if it lends itself to that sort of abuse. It is likely, though not iguaranteed, that any such such districting plan with high enough potential bias was constructed and not accidental. But regardless of cause,, it is in the interests of democracy dstricting plans with a sufficiently high potential for bias be rejected.

[Roy]

Not gerrymandered can have many different superficial appearances. Gerrymander is a verb. It is the purposed manipulation of a district to cause it to be more of a homogeneous voting block as defined by party.

Sorry, Jim, but this is incorrect.

Gerrymandering may be done in order to make a voting district more homogeneous, so that the majority party is in the majority in all areas.

Gerrymandering may be done in order to make a voting district less homogeneous, in order to concentrate votes for one party in some seats. This can be done either to enable a minority party to gain seats where they would otherwise have none, but more likely to concentrate votes for one party in a small number of seats so that they get less representation than before. This can enable one party to gain the majority of seats even if they are supported by a minority of voters.

Generally, gerrymandered districts require complex and multifaceted tiling of the districts so as to gain sufficient homogeneity as to increase the probability the party in power stays in power.

If the party currently in power has less votes than the opposition, this would wipe them out.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, Jim, but this is incorrect.

Gerrymandering may be done in order to make a voting district more homogeneous, so that the majority party is in the majority in all areas.

Gerrymandering may be done in order to make a voting district less homogeneous, in order to concentrate votes for one party in some seats. This can be done either to enable a minority party to gain seats where they would otherwise have none, but more likely to concentrate votes for one party in a small number of seats so that they get less representation than before. This can enable one party to gain the majority of seats even if they are supported by a minority of voters.

If the party currently in power has less votes than the opposition, this would wipe them out.

Thanks!

Yes, It does appear I was overly narrow in my description of how gerrymandering might be used by the gerrymandering party to secure power. And i would agree it is important we recognize as much as possible how many ways a purposed rigging of a districting plan can be used when evaluating if a districting plan has been constructed for that purpose.

[CivilDiscourse]

The elephant in the room is that gerrymandering is used to hold onto power. It works, regardless of what sort special cases might exist that could cause it to do something else. And both parties are guilty of trying to leverage it to gain unfair advantage. My point was primarily to illustrate how and why it can be used to accomplish said goal.

Knowing how it works we can then analyse whatever distracting plan is employed to see if it lends itself to that sort of abuse. It is likely, though not iguaranteed, that any such such districting plan with high enough potential bias was constructed and not accidental. But regardless of cause,, it is in the interests of democracy dstricting plans with a sufficiently high potential for bias be rejected.

This gets back to what I'm saying. Go back to the plans proposed by Beta and Gamma. (Statewide and "randomized virtual districts"). Both likely create 10/0 or 9/1 legislatures in favor of alpha. Given the 60/40 split of the state, do you argue that this creates a "high potential for bias". How you answer this question gets to the heart of what you think "not gerrymandered" is.

[oxmixmudd]

This gets back to what I'm saying. Go back to the plans proposed by Beta and Gamma. (Statewide and "randomized virtual districts"). Both likely create 10/0 or 9/1 legislatures in favor of alpha. Given the 60/40 split of the state, do you argue that this creates a "high potential for bias". How you answer this question gets to the heart of what you think "not gerrymandered" is.

Only when the population votes along party lines. Democracy IS majority rule. We can expect that when a population's majority opinions are reflected by a single party that that party will retain power.

The issue is does the plan prevent a shift in opinion about the two party's policies from being reflected by the shift in the votes of the people. Does the districting plan allow a majority that becomes a minority to retain power? Gerrymandered districts, as I showed, can do that.

IIRC, Both of the plans you propose will allow that shift in popularity to be seen as a shift in power from alpha to beta. They are neither one gerrymandered districting plans.

[rogue06]

Or Illinois

Source: ILLINOIS’ ‘EXTREME’ RISK OF GERRYMANDERING BECOMES REALITY THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL MAP

The Illinois congressional map proposal released by Democrats has districts that are far from compact, snaking to catch and avoid populations. Republicans label it the ‘Nancy Pelosi Protection Plan.’

Democrats in Illinois’ General Assembly unveiled a proposed congressional map Oct. 15, with 17 districts that twist, turn and look like the textbook version of a gerrymander.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

212310comparisonmap-768x707.jpg

The only time Democrats have a problem with gerrymandering is when they aren't doing it.

jerrynadler-gerrymander.jpg

[Alien]

As you woke this thread up, I'll give my point of view. Wish you hadn't now, dontcha?

Presidents represent everyone in the country. They should be elected by a simple majority vote of everyone, without silly electoral colleges.

There are lots of countries in the world that have many different voting systems. So ...

Appoint an independent body to study all these systems, and the historic results in this country, and come up with a "best" system. This would include measures to limit fraud,and other rules governing stuff like postal voting.

Either have a Federal body perform all redistricting, or issue guidelines that each state must abide by.

Enshrine the new system in law.

Revisit the system after 2 or 3 elections and make adjustments as necessary.

Kick Trump in the crotch, hard.