Politico: Republicans expand redistricting strategy for 2020

[krazen1211]

Interesting theory.

Since someone else mentioned Davis v. Bandemer I will simply point out that Sandra Day O'connor dispensed with this line of discussion.

Indeed, there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise

As long as equal population exists across districts, a voter added to a given electoral district must be plucked from a different electoral district. If a voter of political party 1 from district A is transferred to district B political party 1 has lost electoral performance in district A. Which of course leaves district A more exposed to, uh, large swing against the party.

The above is what happened to Tom Delay in the 2006 election, where he reduced the Republican performance of his district and the party lost his seat. There are plenty of other examples.

All that even sets aside that political preference is fungible, and that voters can shift to political party 2 if political party 2 actually desires new voters.

Ya I mean, let's dispense with the niceties though. You don't believe that. You're always commenting about how gerrymanders can be shored up, or made better. You're an avid lover of drawing and commenting on rigged maps.

And I'm sure her idea is just fine once a party gets greedy enough and over-extends itself. We all know it's possible to draw better maps than that, so long as there is a little self-control.

Just admit you like winning at all costs, and the system itself doesn't matter much to you so long as your 'team' wins. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about earlier, or at least your troll persona is.

Yes, I like winning, and I support gerrymandering, and certainly our system of government is not a problem.

Gerrymandering is good sport, and I have no quarrel with the process or the outcome. It has functioned great for 200 years. But that does not make Sandra Day O'connor's observations any less true. She was a rather mediocre Justice but turned out to be entirely correct. Supporters of gerrymandering must be aware of such limitations.

For instance, the Georgia Democrats in 2001 did precisely what was described. They spread their votes across many electoral districts. And there was a large swing against their political party and they lost power. Your issue is not with me and certainly not with any set of electoral maps, at least in the state of Wisconsin. The Democratic party has not performed well in that state in recent elections and therefore resorts to tactics like fleeing to Illinois in order to deny quorum to the legislature.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

If you're a republican, you should be very against gerrymandering right now. Republicans are going to lose big in state legislatures (as parties in power usually do, and it's especially bad when the Republican party is super unpopular right now). Look at the special elections.

Don't be cocky because Republicans have a ton of trifectas right now. Look at how fast democratic state party control died in 2 years of a semi unpopular president. Now imagine how hard the republican state party control is gonna die in 4 years of a very unpopular president.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

While what we've seen in New Hampshire and Oklahoma is very encouraging, neither state is gerrymanderable (well, you can get a 4-1 R map in Oklahoma, but the democratic district is beyond ugly), and it's unclear if those trends meaningfully translate elsewhere. It's nice to see KS-4 and SC-5 be closer than usual, but neither actually flipped. MT being a swing state in non-presidential races is nothing new. And GA-6 actually swung R when compared to 2016 President.

[UncleSam]

I just want a forced continuity, contiguity, and compactness standard. Whatever math makes sense, within limits (like for equal population). I actually don't have a problem with the in-party having some leverage in redistricting since they were actually elected in the first place, but the snakes and other BS in Ohio, North Carolina, etc are affronts to good sense.

'Independent' redistricting committees are a terrible idea in that they are never independent and just serve as a means of allowing unelected persons accountable to no one to usurp the right of the legislature to draw boundaries.

Alternatively I guess I'd be ok with a computer doing everything, so long as it was open sourced and known how it worked.

[Nyvin]

Interesting theory.

Since someone else mentioned Davis v. Bandemer I will simply point out that Sandra Day O'connor dispensed with this line of discussion.

Indeed, there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise

As long as equal population exists across districts, a voter added to a given electoral district must be plucked from a different electoral district. If a voter of political party 1 from district A is transferred to district B political party 1 has lost electoral performance in district A. Which of course leaves district A more exposed to, uh, large swing against the party.

The above is what happened to Tom Delay in the 2006 election, where he reduced the Republican performance of his district and the party lost his seat. There are plenty of other examples.

All that even sets aside that political preference is fungible, and that voters can shift to political party 2 if political party 2 actually desires new voters.

Ya I mean, let's dispense with the niceties though. You don't believe that. You're always commenting about how gerrymanders can be shored up, or made better. You're an avid lover of drawing and commenting on rigged maps.

And I'm sure her idea is just fine once a party gets greedy enough and over-extends itself. We all know it's possible to draw better maps than that, so long as there is a little self-control.

Just admit you like winning at all costs, and the system itself doesn't matter much to you so long as your 'team' wins. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about earlier, or at least your troll persona is.

Yes, I like winning, and I support gerrymandering, and certainly our system of government is not a problem.

Gerrymandering is good sport, and I have no quarrel with the process or the outcome. It has functioned great for 200 years. But that does not make Sandra Day O'connor's observations any less true. She was a rather mediocre Justice but turned out to be entirely correct. Supporters of gerrymandering must be aware of such limitations.

For instance, the Georgia Democrats in 2001 did precisely what was described. They spread their votes across many electoral districts. And there was a large swing against their political party and they lost power. Your issue is not with me and certainly not with any set of electoral maps, at least in the state of Wisconsin. The Democratic party has not performed well in that state in recent elections and therefore resorts to tactics like fleeing to Illinois in order to deny quorum to the legislature.

You're the kind of person who would beat a video game with a god mode cheat turned on and think you have skill.

[Nyvin]

While what we've seen in New Hampshire and Oklahoma is very encouraging, neither state is gerrymanderable (well, you can get a 4-1 R map in Oklahoma, but the democratic district is beyond ugly), and it's unclear if those trends meaningfully translate elsewhere. It's nice to see KS-4 and SC-5 be closer than usual, but neither actually flipped. MT being a swing state in non-presidential races is nothing new. And GA-6 actually swung R when compared to 2016 President.

Those are all seats that back in 2012 wouldn't have even been considered remotely competitive.   You don't see a problem with this?

[krazen1211]

If you're a republican, you should be very against gerrymandering right now. Republicans are going to lose big in state legislatures (as parties in power usually do, and it's especially bad when the Republican party is super unpopular right now). Look at the special elections.

Don't be cocky because Republicans have a ton of trifectas right now. Look at how fast democratic state party control died in 2 years of a semi unpopular president. Now imagine how hard the republican state party control is gonna die in 4 years of a very unpopular president.

That is a nice theory but not one that makes much sense for men of principles. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution merely based on the fact that the Republican party might face some future electoral misfortune.

[senyor_brownbear]

Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Utah, and Missouri all have petitioners working for "independent redistricting commission" ballot initiatives.  Shouldn't we expect most of these to pass (MI and OH are by far the most important)?  Or can Republican office holders put a stop to them between now and Nov 2018?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Anything non-violent can be justified for the purpose of ending abortion.  That's my attitude when it comes to things like gerrymandering.

[Kamala]

Anything non-violent can be justified for the purpose of ending abortion.  That's my attitude when it comes to things like gerrymandering.

Jailing anyone who supports a woman's right to choose, disenfranchising them, deporting/exiling them, stripping them of their citizenship, instituting a poll tax, fining them for voting for a pro-choice candidate, or maybe shutting down organizations that support pro-choice candidates like EMILY's list?

This is pretty deplorable.

[Nyvin]

Anything non-violent can be justified for the purpose of ending abortion.  That's my attitude when it comes to things like gerrymandering.

Does this include banning metal cloth hangers?