SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[Del Tachi]

Freedom decision

[Del Tachi]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

[Del Tachi]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

[Del Tachi]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

[Del Tachi]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

You're defining "egregious" there to prize geography and arbitrary municipal boundaries over representing actual human beings.

Nah, just gotta protect communities of interest brah

[Del Tachi]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

Are you trying to suggest the map in NC doesn't impact the partisan distrubution of the seats???  Really?

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

[Del Tachi]

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

California is drawn by a nonpartisan commission and Massachusetts has unfavourable geography for Republicans. Maryland is a Democratic gerrymander, one of only two currently in place. You've completely missed the point.

What's your point?  If your position is that all states should have to move to non-partisan redistricting commissions then that's fine, but the Constitution gives zero authority for federal courts to affect such a transition.  If we're relying on a proportionality criterion to evaluate maps (which the NC plaintiff essentially was), then California is gerrymandered even if the map is a product of a non-partisan commission.

Saying states have "unfavorable geography" is subjective gobbledygook - there's no inherently "correct" district shape or partisan distribution independent of which subjective criteria one elevates when drawing a map.     

[Del Tachi]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

Are you trying to suggest the map in NC doesn't impact the partisan distrubution of the seats???  Really?

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

Getting at least 5 dem seats in NC is extremely easy and wouldn't require special or obtuse districts.   A 6th might require slightly favored drawing in the Cumberland area.   

But why do the Dems deserve five seats lol

You're relying on proportionality as a criterion without demonstrating why its superior to any other metric.  And even if it was "superior", the criteria to use when drawing districts would still be a political question, not a legal one.

[Del Tachi]

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

California is drawn by a nonpartisan commission and Massachusetts has unfavourable geography for Republicans. Maryland is a Democratic gerrymander, one of only two currently in place. You've completely missed the point.

What's your point?  If your position is that all states should have to move to non-partisan redistricting commissions then that's fine, but the Constitution gives zero authority for federal courts to affect such a transition.  If we're relying on a proportionality criterion to evaluate maps (which the NC plaintiff essentially was), then California is gerrymandered even if the map is a product of a non-partisan commission.

Saying states have "unfavorable geography" is subjective gobbledygook - there's no inherently "correct" district shape or partisan distribution independent of which subjective criteria one elevates when drawing a map.

No, it was your implication that certain states were gerrymanders when they were not. You only mentioned states that were controlled by Democrats, but not necessarily gerrymandered. Almost by definition, a nonpartisan independent commission cannot pass a partisan gerrymander. SCOTUS could easily adopt something along the lines of the Miller Test (despite my personal disagreement with it on principle).

I never said any state was gerrymandered.  My point is that if you selectively use "proportionality" as your chief metric in evaluating districts (like most Democrats do when evaluating Republican-drawn plans) then you have to logically devolve into arguing for non-nonsensical, erose districts that crack recognizable communities of interest to death.  Why?  Because all of these criteria are subjective asf.  They very fact we can't agree on the criteria implies no clear definition of what is or isn't a gerrymander.

[Del Tachi]

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

California is drawn by a nonpartisan commission and Massachusetts has unfavourable geography for Republicans. Maryland is a Democratic gerrymander, one of only two currently in place. You've completely missed the point.

What's your point?  If your position is that all states should have to move to non-partisan redistricting commissions then that's fine, but the Constitution gives zero authority for federal courts to affect such a transition.  If we're relying on a proportionality criterion to evaluate maps (which the NC plaintiff essentially was), then California is gerrymandered even if the map is a product of a non-partisan commission.

Saying states have "unfavorable geography" is subjective gobbledygook - there's no inherently "correct" district shape or partisan distribution independent of which subjective criteria one elevates when drawing a map.     

It's not gobbledygook....it is literally mathematically impossible to draw safe Republican seats in Massachusetts and achieve proportionality in California.   As long as voting districts are based on precincts and contiguity you do have to at least be able to "draw" the districts in some fashion.   It's not rocket science.

Well then if proportionality is the correct legal metric to use, then SCOTUS should rule single-member districts unconstitutional and make all states transition to PR systems?  Right?