New PA Maps In Effect

[cinyc]

John O'Neill, who drew Florida's current congressional and state senate maps, made a 9D-9R PA (7 safe seats for both sides and 4 that lean one way or the other, but could be won by either side) map that does better on the neutral criteria on the whole than every other plan that's been released.



He splits less counties and municipalities than any other map and ties the Senate Democrats for the fewest precinct splits. His compactness score is also better or tied than any other map in 2 of the 3 compactness score and only 0.1 off on the third. What allows his map to be more competative is he splits the City of Pittsburgh as one of his 14 municipality splits, splits Philadelphia 4 times, and Bucks as one of his county splits.  

Source

Here is the PVI data

I would not be shocked if we got a map that looked like this.

I like this one a lot.

Of course you do. Your avatar claims you’re a Democrat. I hate this map because I”m a Republican, and this map gives Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Democrats far more power than they deserve. Geography matters.

That’s one of many reasons why if I were writing the rules, cities would not be chopped more often than necessary as a first order, except to comply with the VRA.

[cinyc]

John O'Neill, who drew Florida's current congressional and state senate maps, made a 9D-9R PA (7 safe seats for both sides and 4 that lean one way or the other, but could be won by either side) map that does better on the neutral criteria on the whole than every other plan that's been released.



He splits less counties and municipalities than any other map and ties the Senate Democrats for the fewest precinct splits. His compactness score is also better or tied than any other map in 2 of the 3 compactness score and only 0.1 off on the third. What allows his map to be more competative is he splits the City of Pittsburgh as one of his 14 municipality splits, splits Philadelphia 4 times, and Bucks as one of his county splits.  

Source

Here is the PVI data

I would not be shocked if we got a map that looked like this.

I like this one a lot.

Of course you do. Your avatar claims you’re a Democrat. I hate this map because I”m a Republican, and this map gives Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Democrats far more power than they deserve. Geography matters.

That’s one of many reasons why if I were writing the rules, cities would not be chopped more often than necessary as a first order, except to comply with the VRA.

Sure, and I happen to think that Republicans shouldn't get more representation because of a geographic quirk. But you are a Republican, so of course you think that people living in cities should be underrepresented.

Nope. My rule would require that cities be adequately represented. No more. No less. There is no reason for Pittsburgh to be split except to double it voting power, or Philadelphia into 4, to increase it by 25%.

But unlike most here, I would ultimately leave redistricting up to the place that the Framers put it in the first place - the state legislature. Not some bogus “independent” commission that really isn’t (because there is no such thing as independent or non-partisan redistricting) or some court that makes up rules to support its party’s position on redistricting for the cycle, like the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Don’t like the way your legislature drew the map? Vote them out of office in the redistricting cycle.

[cinyc]

John O'Neill, who drew Florida's current congressional and state senate maps, made a 9D-9R PA (7 safe seats for both sides and 4 that lean one way or the other, but could be won by either side) map that does better on the neutral criteria on the whole than every other plan that's been released.



He splits less counties and municipalities than any other map and ties the Senate Democrats for the fewest precinct splits. His compactness score is also better or tied than any other map in 2 of the 3 compactness score and only 0.1 off on the third. What allows his map to be more competative is he splits the City of Pittsburgh as one of his 14 municipality splits, splits Philadelphia 4 times, and Bucks as one of his county splits.  

Source

Here is the PVI data

I would not be shocked if we got a map that looked like this.

I like this one a lot.

Of course you do. Your avatar claims you’re a Democrat. I hate this map because I”m a Republican, and this map gives Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Democrats far more power than they deserve. Geography matters.

That’s one of many reasons why if I were writing the rules, cities would not be chopped more often than necessary as a first order, except to comply with the VRA.

Sure, and I happen to think that Republicans shouldn't get more representation because of a geographic quirk. But you are a Republican, so of course you think that people living in cities should be underrepresented.

*snip* Don’t like the way your legislature drew the map? Vote them out of office in the redistricting cycle.

Because that's a thing that can realistically happen with a gerrymandered map

Many a Gerrymander has turned into a Dummymander after 10 years.

Gerrymandering is an American tradition that is even older than the person for whom it is named.

[cinyc]

Many a Gerrymander has turned into a Dummymander after 10 years.

Gerrymandering is an American tradition that is even older than the person for whom it is named.

Do you keep a straight face when you make the argument that rigging elections via crafty map making is OK because ...tradition?

Jesus

Tradition matters. If the Framers were using their state legislatures to Gerrymander to try to keep Thomas Jefferson out of office, how is it unconstitutional for a state legislature to do the same thing today? The wording of constitution hasn’t changed, if I’m not mistaken.

And what is rigging elections via crafty map? Can I argue that my Congressional election is rigged because I wasn’t put in a district with enough Republicans to elect a Republican? I will never have a Republican congressman in my current district, period.

We don’t live in a proportional democracy. If Democrats aren’t able to broaden their appeal outside of the cities, that is their fault. No “crafty” map should be enacted by judicial fiat to try to create a proportional system when that’s not what we have by splitting up cities. If the state legislature wants to do that (like in Maryland and Illinois), I’m fine with it. But no court should impose such a thing by dictat in the name of “fairness”.

And let me guess, Virginia, you prefer the recent map aptly labeled Democratic Gerrymander, too, because you, like me are a partisan who wants their party to win.

[cinyc]

Many a Gerrymander has turned into a Dummymander after 10 years.

Gerrymandering is an American tradition that is even older than the person for whom it is named.

Do you keep a straight face when you make the argument that rigging elections via crafty map making is OK because ...tradition?

Jesus

Tradition matters. If the Framers were using their state legislatures to Gerrymander to try to keep Thomas Jefferson out of office, how is it unconstitutional for a state legislature to do the same thing today? The wording of constitution hasn’t changed, if I’m not mistaken.

And what is rigging elections via crafty map? Can I argue that my Congressional election is rigged because I wasn’t put in a district with enough Republicans to elect a Republican? I will never have a Republican congressman in my current district, period.

We don’t live in a proportional democracy. If Democrats aren’t able to broaden their appeal outside of the cities, that is their fault. No “crafty” map should be enacted by judicial fiat to try to create a proportional system when that’s not what we have by splitting up cities. If the state legislature wants to do that (like in Maryland and Illinois), I’m fine with it. But no court should impose such a thing by dictat in the name of “fairness”.

And let me guess, Virginia, you prefer the recent map aptly labeled Democratic Gerrymander, too, because you, like me are a partisan who wants their party to win.

The last map posted is the most fair based on the principles put forward by the PA Supreme Court.

Regardless of whether or not what you said is true, it's still a dumb map.

I’m sure that if I had the time and resources, I could draw an even more compact R compact Gerrymander with even fewer splits. From what I’ve read, there are over 500 different ways to draw a compact map that minimizes county splits. What’s a “dumb” or “better” map ultimately is in the partisan eye of the beholder. And we’re ALL partisans, whether we like it or not, including the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

There is no such thing as nonpartisan or neutral redistricting principles.

[cinyc]

I’m sure that if I had the time and resources, I could draw an even more compact R compact Gerrymander with even fewer splits. From what I’ve read, there are over 500 different ways to draw a compact map that minimizes county splits. What’s a “dumb” or “better” map ultimately is in the partisan eye of the beholder. And we’re ALL partisans, whether we like it or not, including the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

There is no such thing as nonpartisan or neutral redistricting principles.

So you're a hyper-partisan with no interests in fair representation.   Gotcha.  

You're basically just a cheerleader for the Republican Party, and not much else.   Thankfully the public at large utterly HATES partisan gerrymandering and it's quickly becoming untenable for politicians/judges to support it or even not act against it.

You're swimming against the tide in the country,  I would expect by 2030 partisan gerrymandering will be probably be a historic thing of the past, at least to the level we see now.

There is no such thing as “fair representation” in a first past the post geography-based system - and you’re probably not interested in it, either. I don’t think it’s “fair” that I will be represented by a Democratic Congressman no matter who I vote for, but it is the way it is. This is not a proportional democracy. Geography matters - as it should.

What do you think a “fair” map is? Is the Maryland map “fair” in your view? Is the Illinois map fair? Is this proposed PA map labeled a Democratic Gerrymander that splits cities to give disproportionate power to them at the expense of suburbs and rural areas “fair”? If you think any of those maps are “fair”, then you too are a hyper-partisan with no interest in “fair” representation.

It is impossible to divorce politics from redistricting. Even if a supposedly neutral computer were to choose the map, the rules you give the computer to use would have partisan impacts.

Unfortunately, I think the Supreme Court will rule against partisan Gerrymandering this cycle, with muddied principles of nonsense. I think this is the wrong decision for many reasons.

By the way, if I were a true hyper-partisan, wouldn’t I be arguing that the Maryland and Illinois maps are illegal because disingenuous reasons while claiming the PA map is permissible, instead of arguing that the legislature should have the ultimate authority on Congressional redistricting because that’s what the U.S. Constitution says?

[cinyc]

And let me guess, Virginia, you prefer the recent map aptly labeled Democratic Gerrymander, too, because you, like me are a partisan who wants their party to win.

Not really. If I had my way, I'd just switch everything to proportional representation, sure. But until then, I'm not demanding a 9-9 PA map. I liked Oryxslayer's map, which I believe had more safe R seats than safe D.

You really do live up to your name though. What I take from your posts on this is that you believe partisan bias infects everything, so there is no point in trying to fix it. Then tradition, etc etc. I can't speak for everyone, but I myself am not asking for a map that is 100% free of partisan tricks. I don't have an expectation for that. I just think we can have better maps than the crap pumped out by partisan lawmakers who seek to ensure they win as many elections as possible, by any means possible. Such greedy people do not deserve the power to draw the maps we use to elect lawmakers. As such, I don't care for your cynical view of redistricting, and I suspect most people aren't clamoring for partisan politicians to game the system for their "team" either.

I don't believe the framers got everything right, and I also do not believe that just because we have done things one way for a long time, that we can't change it. I don't believe our system is properly representing the will of the voters, so I will try to change it, in the meager ways I can as a single person.

No. The c in my name actually stands for conservative. It's not a play on the word cynic. And my conservative, Scalian, view is that the U.S. Constitution has left it up to the state legislatures to determine the Manner of electing the House absent an Act of Congress to the contrary - and that includes redistricting. If you don't like the way your state legislature redistricts, you have three options: 1) amend the U.S. Constitution, 2) get Congress to pass a law on redistricting to your liking, or 3) vote for a divided legislature (if you're "nonpartisan" - which I think is about as common among people who deeply care about politics as a unicorn) or your party's legislature in a redistricting year. Absent that, the courts should butt out of redistricting. It's not in their purview.

I have no problem with the PA map - or the partisan Democratic Gerrymanders in MD or IL. But if you don't think the current PA map is "fair" because it's not "proportional" but also don't think that Republicans should be entitled to 2 or 3/8 seats in Maryland instead of the 1 they currently have, for example, then you're a partisan - just of the Democratic stripe.

[cinyc]

If you don't like the way your state legislature redistricts, you have three options: 1) amend the U.S. Constitution, 2) get Congress to pass a law on redistricting to your liking, or 3) vote for a divided legislature (if you're "nonpartisan" - which I think is about as common among people who deeply care about politics as a unicorn) or your party's legislature in a redistricting year. Absent that, the courts should butt out of redistricting. It's not in their purview.

What if the state legislature is gerrymandered so heavily following the 2010 election that it is no longer a democratically elected body, cinyc? This is what happened in WI and NC. No point telling people in WI to "elect a legislature you like" when it's proven impossible to dislodge a single-party state without overwhelming force. Now that Democrats are winning some unlikely districts, the governor is refusing to hold elections in vacant senate seats even though election day is 9 months away. The Republicans have completely broken the system and don't believe in democracy. The courts need to step in, just like they had to with Southern Democrats jimrtex cites from two generations ago.

You are wrong about Wisconsin. The Wisconsin legislature is not in session - and won’t be until after the election, unless a special session is called. The governor has no obligation - or even right - to call a special election under those circumstances. Your problem is with Wisconsin law, which doesn’t call for the state to waste money on a useless election that would have no real world consequences - as it probably shouldn’t.

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states. It’s always the Republican ones that raise your ire. Start with the Democrat Gerrymander in your own home state’s legislature, for example. I guess you’d agree that Massachusetts Democrats have broken the system and don’t believe in democracy, right?  I’m also sure you and other Democrats were real concerned when Democrats Gerrymandered NC so that no Republicans could possibly win the state legislature - until they overcame the map and did.

The fact is no Gerrymander is truly safe 8 or 10 years out. Conditions change. Many a Gerrymander becomes a dummymander. No map is “safe”.

Anyway, the section of the U.S. Constitution I cited applies to Congressional redistricting, not state redistricting. It’s up to the states to decide how to redistrict their legislatures.

[cinyc]

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states.

Cinyc, I don't expect you to be an expert in my posts, but after the 20th false accusation of "why don't Democrats care about Maryland, huh?!" it's become too boring to indulge these kinds of attacks. Do a search, you can find plenty of posts where I say Maryland's gerrymander should go, too, and just about every other Democrat here is consistent in opposing partisan gerrymandering. As far as Massachusetts's map, you're far too smart to blame gerrymandering when you know the issue in Massachusetts is mainly the lack of a bench / concentration of Republican voters.

The fact is there is no "good government" argument to defend gerrymandering by pretending voters have recourse through state legislatures. After Republicans won big in 2010, they gerrymandered several states to impose de facto single-party government in those states and have used legislative power to then weaken levers available to citizens through local government, judiciary, and future elections. I'm not interested in hearing justifications for it; in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, it is all about one party holding power at the expense of democracy. I would happily throw away Maryland's advantages in the interest of democracy everywhere.

I’m talking about the Massachusetts legislature map, not the Congressional map, where Republicans have what, 6/40 seats in the Senate and something like 20% of the seats in the House? If “proportionality” is what we strive for because it is “fair”, shouldn’t those numbers be higher so that Republicans could create a bench? After all, we have posters here calling for Democrats to get 9/18 seats in PA by forcing a Democratic Gerrymander on the state to overcome the Democrats’ geographical disadvantages there. If “proportionality” is good for PA, why isn’t it good for Massachusetts? In other words, if you want seats in PA for your party in the name of “proportionality” and “democracy”, I want seats for my party in Democratic states like Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, etc. If you get your PA Democratic Gerrymander, I want my Massachusetts Republican Gerrymander. You can’t have it both ways.

My concept of good government simply differs from yours. For me, it is not good government for judges to make up rights that haven’t existed for 200+ years. My concept of good government means that people who want change effect that change in the ways prescribed by the constitution - get Congress to pass a law on redistricting, elect your party to the state legislature or amend the constitution. What’s not fair is to change the rules to help one party.