Both Parties Rig Maps. The Only Thing That Changes Is Who Cries About It. This Isn’t a Scandal. It’s a Strategy. And You’ve Been Cheering It On. Red or Blue, They All Twist the Lines—You Just Notice..
Racial discrimination and the calculation of equal representation is left out of your analysis. The political majority arbitrary exclusion of minority groups is still unconstitutional, while political gerrymandering remains permissible by law.
Katia, you are correct that exclusion of minority groups is unconstitutional. It does get taken care of in the courts though. And if you think the Republicans are the only ones doing that, you are most certainly kidding yourself. In other words, both sides do that and try to get away with it!qw2
How is it gerrymandering when the process for map-drawing is written into the state constitution or state statute? If you don’t like the statute, change it. If you don’t like the constitution, amend it. Sell your cause to the people, get your cause on a ballot, and I hope you win. If not, oh well. Either way, the law is the law, and in the grand old U.S.A., that’s what matters.
There’s been too much complaining about congressional maps in recent years. Sobbing doesn’t change things, and sore losers never win. If you feel that strongly about congressional maps, you have a remedy. Any other approach is just noise.
How to put mathematical (geometric) limits on gerrymandering is actually an interesting problem. I think we need a way to objectively limit the geometric shape that a district can take. Maybe it could be based on the ratio of the perimeter length to the area or something like that. That would put a clear, objective limit on the contortions that would be permitted.
Yes, the actual computation should be fairly straightforward. The hard part is developing a consensus on the actual criteria. I think the ratio of perimeter length to area is a good one, but the trick is getting a majority to agree on that. And then there is a parameter that also needs to be agreed on, which is how large the ratio is allowed to be. That whole process would have to be done for each state separately. But if it can be done, it would put a limit on the political shenanigans involved on gerrymandering.
I don't know if they have made charges mid-cycle, but I do know there is nothing in any law forbidding that. If they haven't, it just turns out that the Repubs did it first and the Dems are mad they did not think about it before. I know also that both parties have been taking advantage of this feature for many decades.
Thank you for taking the time to address me with this.
I never knew that doing something different than the norm was/is considered "violating." Or in all honesty, is it just that the party you don't like is the one who did something different? Please let me know which it is? (Be honest)
Being somewhat of a rebel, I personally find that the word violation is somewhat randomly used, primarily to embarrass a political opponent. Especially since there is no penalty. I think in our political system the word "Violation" is used not in any legal way, but to make the other side "look and sound" bad. I think that is not a good way to operate our politics.
Thank you very much for making me aware of this. I never knew it existed in that context.
Wow! The 3D clarity in your observations, understanding, analysis and conclusions is brilliant. Thank you for the joyful fair mindedness. Cheers to you!!
Racial discrimination and the calculation of equal representation is left out of your analysis. The political majority arbitrary exclusion of minority groups is still unconstitutional, while political gerrymandering remains permissible by law.
Katia, you are correct that exclusion of minority groups is unconstitutional. It does get taken care of in the courts though. And if you think the Republicans are the only ones doing that, you are most certainly kidding yourself. In other words, both sides do that and try to get away with it!qw2
How is it gerrymandering when the process for map-drawing is written into the state constitution or state statute? If you don’t like the statute, change it. If you don’t like the constitution, amend it. Sell your cause to the people, get your cause on a ballot, and I hope you win. If not, oh well. Either way, the law is the law, and in the grand old U.S.A., that’s what matters.
There’s been too much complaining about congressional maps in recent years. Sobbing doesn’t change things, and sore losers never win. If you feel that strongly about congressional maps, you have a remedy. Any other approach is just noise.
I understand that “redistricting” occurs (by statute?) every ten years based on census… also ‘supposedly’ to be bipartisan.
That’s not happening ..we have allowed it to become a way of a party in power to ‘stack the deck’ so to speak.
Doing this in less than 10 ( as in Tx now, is seen to be definitely NOT bipartisan. There has GOT to be a better way🤷♀️🤦🏼♀️
How to put mathematical (geometric) limits on gerrymandering is actually an interesting problem. I think we need a way to objectively limit the geometric shape that a district can take. Maybe it could be based on the ratio of the perimeter length to the area or something like that. That would put a clear, objective limit on the contortions that would be permitted.
Nowadays computers can do it
Yes, the actual computation should be fairly straightforward. The hard part is developing a consensus on the actual criteria. I think the ratio of perimeter length to area is a good one, but the trick is getting a majority to agree on that. And then there is a parameter that also needs to be agreed on, which is how large the ratio is allowed to be. That whole process would have to be done for each state separately. But if it can be done, it would put a limit on the political shenanigans involved on gerrymandering.
I agree with you 100% Thank you Russell.
Both parties have done gerrymandering but the Republicans have gained far more by it.
https://chatgpt.com/share/689e9bee-eac4-800e-ae3f-a4ae18f2e6cb
I don't know if either party has made the changes to districts mid-cycle before?
Computers can now generate fair districts but neither party has shown much interest in taking advantage of that option
Sherril,
I don't know if they have made charges mid-cycle, but I do know there is nothing in any law forbidding that. If they haven't, it just turns out that the Repubs did it first and the Dems are mad they did not think about it before. I know also that both parties have been taking advantage of this feature for many decades.
Thank you for taking the time to address me with this.
Sunny
Just another norm they've violated then. Expletive deleted!$! 😨😰😱😵😡😠😤
I never knew that doing something different than the norm was/is considered "violating." Or in all honesty, is it just that the party you don't like is the one who did something different? Please let me know which it is? (Be honest)
It is considered a violation.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.13383
I could go on but I'll stop there.
I'm nonpartisan whenever possible. Its been more and more difficult for me, since 1980 to be exact. But I still try.
Being somewhat of a rebel, I personally find that the word violation is somewhat randomly used, primarily to embarrass a political opponent. Especially since there is no penalty. I think in our political system the word "Violation" is used not in any legal way, but to make the other side "look and sound" bad. I think that is not a good way to operate our politics.
Thank you very much for making me aware of this. I never knew it existed in that context.
Sunny
Until recently & Trump, following norms was usually accepted by all candidates and elected officials.
Wow! The 3D clarity in your observations, understanding, analysis and conclusions is brilliant. Thank you for the joyful fair mindedness. Cheers to you!!