New PA Maps In Effect

[Sestak]

Alright, when's Wolf gonna veto this thing?

[muon2]

That map is god awful and completely ignores the court order.   19 county splits???  That's absurd.

And the courts wanted more competitive districts and they make PA-1 and PA-2 into even HEAVIER dem vote sinks?

This is a slap in the face

I wouldn't call 19 splits absurd. There are only 3 more chops than the minimum needed to meet their level of pop inequality, and there appear to be relatively few county subunit chops in the chopped counties (perhaps oryxslayer has that exact answer from his reconstruction). It also looks like they can claim bipartisan incumbent residence protection in this plan, keeping those running again in the same CD.

PA-1 and 2 were never going to be competitive, so I doubt the court will care which way they change as long as it doesn't violate the VRA. Competitiveness will likely be measured in the number of CDs that have PVI of 5 or less, and here the new Pub plan actually loses one as PA-16 goes from R+5 to R+7. However, I suspect the Pubs would counter by arguing that the improvements to PA-7 from R+1 to D+2 and PA-15 from R+4 to R+1 are more meaningful than the shift of PA-16. My skew measurement would agree with the Pubs in that regard, but my polarization measure would not.

The Pubs are certainly short of an ideal plan, but they can point to clear improvements in chops, erosity, and skew, at least as I would measure them. That may be their objective if they are faced with another round in court.

[jimrtex]

I agree the Alito's denial should not have been a close call, and I'm glad to see that apparently it wasn't.

But I don't see how this suggests anything about the ultimate disposition of Whitford.  The cases are based on totally different arguments along every relevant dimension.

Perhaps there's another reason and I'm grasping at straws, but this doesn't strike me as something Alito would normally dismiss so readily. Whitford is the only insider info related to redistricting he has that he could use to go straight for a dismissal, given that Roberts stayed NC.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had failed to issue an opinion at the time. Alito may have felt a stay was premature.

[Torie]

That map is god awful and completely ignores the court order.   19 county splits???  That's absurd.

And the courts wanted more competitive districts and they make PA-1 and PA-2 into even HEAVIER dem vote sinks?

This is a slap in the face

I wouldn't call 19 splits absurd. There are only 3 more chops than the minimum needed to meet their level of pop inequality, and there appear to be relatively few county subunit chops in the chopped counties (perhaps oryxslayer has that exact answer from his reconstruction). It also looks like they can claim bipartisan incumbent residence protection in this plan, keeping those running again in the same CD.

PA-1 and 2 were never going to be competitive, so I doubt the court will care which way they change as long as it doesn't violate the VRA. Competitiveness will likely be measured in the number of CDs that have PVI of 5 or less, and here the new Pub plan actually loses one as PA-16 goes from R+5 to R+7. However, I suspect the Pubs would counter by arguing that the improvements to PA-7 from R+1 to D+2 and PA-15 from R+4 to R+1 are more meaningful than the shift of PA-16. My skew measurement would agree with the Pubs in that regard, but my polarization measure would not.

The Pubs are certainly short of an ideal plan, but they can point to clear improvements in chops, erosity, and skew, at least as I would measure them. That may be their objective if they are faced with another round in court.

Your analysis might have some traction if Wolff signed off on this map. Then the issue is whether the map is sufficiently "de-gerrymandered" to be legal. But if Wolff does not (and why on earth would he?), then no map has been adopted, and just why would the court draw a map that is still a GOP gerrymander, but less egregious, just because the Pubs drew it, rather than draw a map that is not gerrymandered, and eliminates the excess chops that are there for partisan reasons? What would you do as a judge? If you were Wolff, in his position, as a Dem, would you sign off on this map? You do agree that this map is still a Pub gerrymander I assume.

[jimrtex]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

[Torie]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

Your individual rights are being traduced, if the point of view to which you subscribe is systematically discriminated against, by virtue of those who agree with you getting less than their share of the pie via gerrymandering. There is an individual right for things to be fair via collective action. Individual versus collective rights in this context is a false dichotomy.

[Brittain33]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

Jim, it sounds like you're most interested in the individual right to vote, while I am focusing on whether we have a democratic and representative form of government as opposed to a one-party state with ineffective elections. Is that fair? I imagine your emphasis is linked to the rationale in the Pennsylvania court's majority. Is that correct?

I don't really have anything to add to my arguments about the need for a democratic and representative form of government. It is an awkward fact of history that in many parts of the U.S., particularly where there are racial minorities, there has not even been the pretense of actual democracy or representative government despite the ideals of the Declaration of Independence for most of 200+ years of independence. I believe, and many judges believe, that we should move in the direction of democracy and representative government. In the arguments you and I have engaged in, Jim, you have always focused on other lines of argument and not engaged with this issue. That's your choice, but this is why we never come to resolution.

If everyone has the right to cast a ballot, but some ballots count for more than others because the voter's political party and beliefs align with the majority party in the legislature in 2010, then the right to cast a ballot is not equal and fair.

[muon2]

That map is god awful and completely ignores the court order.   19 county splits???  That's absurd.

And the courts wanted more competitive districts and they make PA-1 and PA-2 into even HEAVIER dem vote sinks?

This is a slap in the face

I wouldn't call 19 splits absurd. There are only 3 more chops than the minimum needed to meet their level of pop inequality, and there appear to be relatively few county subunit chops in the chopped counties (perhaps oryxslayer has that exact answer from his reconstruction). It also looks like they can claim bipartisan incumbent residence protection in this plan, keeping those running again in the same CD.

PA-1 and 2 were never going to be competitive, so I doubt the court will care which way they change as long as it doesn't violate the VRA. Competitiveness will likely be measured in the number of CDs that have PVI of 5 or less, and here the new Pub plan actually loses one as PA-16 goes from R+5 to R+7. However, I suspect the Pubs would counter by arguing that the improvements to PA-7 from R+1 to D+2 and PA-15 from R+4 to R+1 are more meaningful than the shift of PA-16. My skew measurement would agree with the Pubs in that regard, but my polarization measure would not.

The Pubs are certainly short of an ideal plan, but they can point to clear improvements in chops, erosity, and skew, at least as I would measure them. That may be their objective if they are faced with another round in court.

Your analysis might have some traction if Wolff signed off on this map. Then the issue is whether the map is sufficiently "de-gerrymandered" to be legal. But if Wolff does not (and why on earth would he?), then no map has been adopted, and just why would the court draw a map that is still a GOP gerrymander, but less egregious, just because the Pubs drew it, rather than draw a map that is not gerrymandered, and eliminates the excess chops that are there for partisan reasons? What would you do as a judge? If you were Wolff, in his position, as a Dem, would you sign off on this map? You do agree that this map is still a Pub gerrymander I assume.

Unless there's some push in the court of public opinion I see no reason for Wolf to sign off. His easiest response would seem to note that it hasn't passed the Assembly so he has no formal need to act, but state that he thinks that the Pubs could have done more.

I did read the Feb 9 Pub response to the court that jimrtex linked and I can add that there is one additional chop in Berks that is invisible of the scale of the map. There are 18 subunit chops and that is one more than the minimum, since they are proposing exact equality. They rely on a basket of expert-generated plans that were recognized by the court and shows that the new plan fits into their measures of chops and erosity of that expert basket. They also confirm my guess that they have protected the CDs of all incumbents seeking reelection with 68.3% of the Pub and 69.8% of the Dem prior population retained in the new map.

[jimrtex]

That map is god awful and completely ignores the court order.   19 county splits???  That's absurd.

And the courts wanted more competitive districts and they make PA-1 and PA-2 into even HEAVIER dem vote sinks?

This is a slap in the face

I wouldn't call 19 splits absurd. There are only 3 more chops than the minimum needed to meet their level of pop inequality, and there appear to be relatively few county subunit chops in the chopped counties (perhaps oryxslayer has that exact answer from his reconstruction). It also looks like they can claim bipartisan incumbent residence protection in this plan, keeping those running again in the same CD.

PA-1 and 2 were never going to be competitive, so I doubt the court will care which way they change as long as it doesn't violate the VRA. Competitiveness will likely be measured in the number of CDs that have PVI of 5 or less, and here the new Pub plan actually loses one as PA-16 goes from R+5 to R+7. However, I suspect the Pubs would counter by arguing that the improvements to PA-7 from R+1 to D+2 and PA-15 from R+4 to R+1 are more meaningful than the shift of PA-16. My skew measurement would agree with the Pubs in that regard, but my polarization measure would not.

The Pubs are certainly short of an ideal plan, but they can point to clear improvements in chops, erosity, and skew, at least as I would measure them. That may be their objective if they are faced with another round in court.

Your analysis might have some traction if Wolff signed off on this map. Then the issue is whether the map is sufficiently "de-gerrymandered" to be legal. But if Wolff does not (and why on earth would he?), then no map has been adopted, and just why would the court draw a map that is still a GOP gerrymander, but less egregious, just because the Pubs drew it, rather than draw a map that is not gerrymandered, and eliminates the excess chops that are there for partisan reasons? What would you do as a judge? If you were Wolff, in his position, as a Dem, would you sign off on this map? You do agree that this map is still a Pub gerrymander I assume.

Does the Supreme Court have the authority to abrogate provisions in the state constitution that specify legislative process? Perhaps Justice Caligula could appoint his horse to the Senate.

Actually, the courts order says that all parties may submit maps to the court. Maybe Governor Woof will do so. The plaintiffs submitted the 500 maps that were computer-generated on a thumb drive.

The legislative map has half the municipality splits as the Chen plans, and is comparably compact.

[jimrtex]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

Your individual rights are being traduced, if the point of view to which you subscribe is systematically discriminated against, by virtue of those who agree with you getting less than their share of the pie via gerrymandering. There is an individual right for things to be fair via collective action. Individual versus collective rights in this context is a false dichotomy.

Did the Toriemander comply with 10.1(ii)a(13)(a.)(iii.)?

"The plan shall provide substantially fair and effective representation for the people of the local government as organized in political parties."

[Torie]

That map is god awful and completely ignores the court order.   19 county splits???  That's absurd.

And the courts wanted more competitive districts and they make PA-1 and PA-2 into even HEAVIER dem vote sinks?

This is a slap in the face

I wouldn't call 19 splits absurd. There are only 3 more chops than the minimum needed to meet their level of pop inequality, and there appear to be relatively few county subunit chops in the chopped counties (perhaps oryxslayer has that exact answer from his reconstruction). It also looks like they can claim bipartisan incumbent residence protection in this plan, keeping those running again in the same CD.

PA-1 and 2 were never going to be competitive, so I doubt the court will care which way they change as long as it doesn't violate the VRA. Competitiveness will likely be measured in the number of CDs that have PVI of 5 or less, and here the new Pub plan actually loses one as PA-16 goes from R+5 to R+7. However, I suspect the Pubs would counter by arguing that the improvements to PA-7 from R+1 to D+2 and PA-15 from R+4 to R+1 are more meaningful than the shift of PA-16. My skew measurement would agree with the Pubs in that regard, but my polarization measure would not.

The Pubs are certainly short of an ideal plan, but they can point to clear improvements in chops, erosity, and skew, at least as I would measure them. That may be their objective if they are faced with another round in court.

Your analysis might have some traction if Wolff signed off on this map. Then the issue is whether the map is sufficiently "de-gerrymandered" to be legal. But if Wolff does not (and why on earth would he?), then no map has been adopted, and just why would the court draw a map that is still a GOP gerrymander, but less egregious, just because the Pubs drew it, rather than draw a map that is not gerrymandered, and eliminates the excess chops that are there for partisan reasons? What would you do as a judge? If you were Wolff, in his position, as a Dem, would you sign off on this map? You do agree that this map is still a Pub gerrymander I assume.

Unless there's some push in the court of public opinion I see no reason for Wolf to sign off. His easiest response would seem to note that it hasn't passed the Assembly so he has no formal need to act, but state that he thinks that the Pubs could have done more.

I did read the Feb 9 Pub response to the court that jimrtex linked and I can add that there is one additional chop in Berks that is invisible of the scale of the map. There are 18 subunit chops and that is one more than the minimum, since they are proposing exact equality. They rely on a basket of expert-generated plans that were recognized by the court and shows that the new plan fits into their measures of chops and erosity of that expert basket. They also confirm my guess that they have protected the CDs of all incumbents seeking reelection with 68.3% of the Pub and 69.8% of the Dem prior population retained in the new map.

The document says there are 17 muni chops. Is it 18, because a trip-chopped muni only counts as one chop? Are we in same syndrome as the Ohio contest rules as to tri-chops being the same bi-chops?

[jimrtex]

I did read the Feb 9 Pub response to the court that jimrtex linked and I can add that there is one additional chop in Berks that is invisible of the scale of the map. There are 18 subunit chops and that is one more than the minimum, since they are proposing exact equality. They rely on a basket of expert-generated plans that were recognized by the court and shows that the new plan fits into their measures of chops and erosity of that expert basket. They also confirm my guess that they have protected the CDs of all incumbents seeking reelection with 68.3% of the Pub and 69.8% of the Dem prior population retained in the new map.

The basket of computer-generated plans is what the plaintiffs have submitted on a thumb drive.

Jowei Chen's computer program is suspect. In 'Whitford v Gill' none of his 100s of plans kept Columbia County whole. And while you and I generated plans that kept 40 or so counties whole, he only managed 20. It also appears that since Milwaukee can't be kept whole in a single district it did not matter if the number of the districts in the county were kept whole.

Chen also counts split counties, rather than county splits. He claims that this is a "traditional redistricting" criteria. This is totally false. Between the Civil War and the 1960s, only two counties, Philadelphia and Allegheny, were divided. Previously there had been a few exceptions, but these may have been due to changes in boundaries, etc. Pennsylvania also had multi-member districts prior to their being outlawed by Congress in the 1840s.

The courts order also provides that all parties may submit plans to the court by February 15.

[Torie]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

Your individual rights are being traduced, if the point of view to which you subscribe is systematically discriminated against, by virtue of those who agree with you getting less than their share of the pie via gerrymandering. There is an individual right for things to be fair via collective action. Individual versus collective rights in this context is a false dichotomy.

Did the Toriemander comply with 10.1(ii)a(13)(a.)(iii.)?

"The plan shall provide substantially fair and effective representation for the people of the local government as organized in political parties."

I don't understand your question, and what map you think is a Toriemander. So perhaps you might answer your own rhetorical question, and explain why whatever I drew is a legal fail.

[jimrtex]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

Jim, it sounds like you're most interested in the individual right to vote, while I am focusing on whether we have a democratic and representative form of government as opposed to a one-party state with ineffective elections. Is that fair? I imagine your emphasis is linked to the rationale in the Pennsylvania court's majority. Is that correct?

I don't really have anything to add to my arguments about the need for a democratic and representative form of government. It is an awkward fact of history that in many parts of the U.S., particularly where there are racial minorities, there has not even been the pretense of actual democracy or representative government despite the ideals of the Declaration of Independence for most of 200+ years of independence. I believe, and many judges believe, that we should move in the direction of democracy and representative government. In the arguments you and I have engaged in, Jim, you have always focused on other lines of argument and not engaged with this issue. That's your choice, but this is why we never come to resolution.

If everyone has the right to cast a ballot, but some ballots count for more than others because the voter's political party and beliefs align with the majority party in the legislature in 2010, then the right to cast a ballot is not equal and fair.

In a system where representation is based on geographic areas, there is no right to representation on the basis of political beliefs or race.

You' may be suggesting that Congress by requiring election by district is violating the Pennsylvania  Constitution.

If a citizen voter lives near a concentration of racial minority voters, does the 15th Amendment require placement of that voter in a district where his vote will not matter in order to ensure adequate representation for the racial minority voters?

[jimrtex]

Your individual rights are being traduced, if the point of view to which you subscribe is systematically discriminated against, by virtue of those who agree with you getting less than their share of the pie via gerrymandering. There is an individual right for things to be fair via collective action. Individual versus collective rights in this context is a false dichotomy.

Did the Toriemander comply with 10.1(ii)a(13)(a.)(iii.)?

"The plan shall provide substantially fair and effective representation for the people of the local government as organized in political parties."

I don't understand your question, and what map you think is a Toriemander. So perhaps you might answer your own rhetorical question, and explain why whatever I drew is a legal fail.

Sorry, that was a reference to the New York MHR law.

Political fairness is a explicit affirmative legal requirement in New York, and not something inferred by a court from a lofty phrase in the Constitution.

[Torie]

Your individual rights are being traduced, if the point of view to which you subscribe is systematically discriminated against, by virtue of those who agree with you getting less than their share of the pie via gerrymandering. There is an individual right for things to be fair via collective action. Individual versus collective rights in this context is a false dichotomy.

Did the Toriemander comply with 10.1(ii)a(13)(a.)(iii.)?

"The plan shall provide substantially fair and effective representation for the people of the local government as organized in political parties."

I don't understand your question, and what map you think is a Toriemander. So perhaps you might answer your own rhetorical question, and explain why whatever I drew is a legal fail.

Sorry, that was a reference to the New York MHR law.

Political fairness is a explicit affirmative legal requirement in New York, and not something inferred by a court from a lofty phrase in the Constitution.

Oh. The answer then is of course I did.

[King Lear]

Can anyone list these districts by how they voted in 2016 under this new map?

[Gass3268]

I just read that Wolf has a PhD in Political Science from MIT and his is dissertation on the United States House of Representatives was named the best of 1981 by the American Political Science Association.

Absolutely no way he doesn't veto.

[junior chįmp]

I just read that Wolf has a PhD in Political Science from MIT and his is dissertation on the United States House of Representatives was named the best of 1981 by the American Political Science Association.

Absolutely no way he doesn't veto.

Democrats still believe in this "muh purple America" nonsense...I wouldn't put it past him to not veto it in order to make some pointless attempt at bipartisanship

[Brittain33]

In a system where representation is based on geographic areas, there is no right to representation on the basis of political beliefs or race.

This would advocate for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's criteria (observe county and municipal boundaries) over those the 2010 PA legislature chose (maximize representation for voters of the same political beliefs, while disregarding geographic area) for drawing boundaries, as with PA-7.

In any case, I'm more interested in a healthy democracy where opposing views have an opportunity to have a voice in government rather than a system comparable to the Soviet Union where you have the form of elections and people can vote but those in power at a certain time (1877, 1917, 1949, or 2010) decide what the outcome is for decades to come and the leadership and policy is incapable of change except through internal party mechanisms. We saw that kind of government in southern U.S. states until the 1970s under southern Democrats including Texas; it wasn't anyone's idea of good government.

Jim, you are defending one-party government in states where at times, often frequently, a majority of the voting-age population opposes that party. I'm curious: do you think this is a good thing for that state? Do you think this is consistent with the idea that a U.S. state is a democracy? Please don't answer with another question; don't give me some variation of "the Constitution says it has to be this way"; I am asking you as someone whose political knowledge I respect, because I want to understand how you think about this situation.

[Gass3268]

So I think I have the full map - I can't be too sure without a zoom to Philly or Pittsburgh. However, after a complete draw, I don't see how this map has any chance of A. - Passing the Veto, and B. - passing the Court. The 7th isn't even chucked as originally thought, the Pubs kept it competitive in their greed. They also appear incredibly scared of Lamb, pushing the 18th several points to the right and putting his home outside the new seat. The only thing that Pubs didn't do way draw out Cartwright, but he still has a bunch of ancestral Republican Territory attached to what should be Lakawanna+Luzurne+Monroe.

PA-01: D+30.79 -> D+32.86
PA-02: D+40.09 -> D+41.19
PA-03: R+11.49 -> R+9.82
PA-04: R+11.11 -> R+16.8
PA-05: R+13.05 -> R+16.4
PA-06: R+1.98 -> R+3.59
PA-07: R+1.35 -> D+1.64
PA-08: R+1.56 -> R+1.64
PA-09: R+19.38 -> R+20.29
PA-10: R+16.32 -> R+16.61
PA-11: R+10.11 -> R+8.06
PA-12: R+11.55 -> R+7.33
PA-13: D+15.42 -> D+13.06
PA-14: D+17.02 -> D+16.66
PA-15: R+4.24 -> R+0.71
PA-16: R+4.94 -> R+7.49
PA-17: R+1.07 -> R+0.84
PA-18: R+10.76 -> R+12.93

That map still sucks. Sorry.

I give this map a 100% change of a wolf veto, and even if it somehow finds its way over (I doubt, anything would be better than this for dems, philly machine is dead) the court would reject this simply because of the number of cuts, not even needing to go into the partisan data. When Republicans said that they were going to do a redraw there was an actual chance of them drawing a fair map that tilted right, which would be acceptable to the court so Wolf would have to approve in order to avoid looking like a partisan. But this map? This map is just handing power over to the special master.

Oryxslayer, could you possibly post this map with the municipality lines? I want to try to get as much of the 16 information as possible.

[muon2]

The document says there are 17 muni chops. Is it 18, because a trip-chopped muni only counts as one chop? Are we in same syndrome as the Ohio contest rules as to tri-chops being the same bi-chops?

To some degree. They count the number of counties that are chopped and the number of munis that are chopped, and separately list how many fragments are in those units that are chopped. What I generally call a fragment, they call a slice. This creates a bias towards multi-chopping units, though they try to show that they didn't let that get out of hand. They also count the number of fragments in each district to show that no district has too many fragments.

[Gass3268]

Nate Cohen got the 2016 results:



Source

[Brittain33]

So based on those 2016 results, they definitely drowned Reading in Lancaster County.

[LimoLiberal]

Nate Cohen got the 2016 results:



Source

Lmao. Went from 12-6 Trump map to a 13-5 Trump map.

You tried.