Busting the "both sides do it" myth

[krazen1211]

What a batch of liars. They forgot Massachusetts.

[krazen1211]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean. 

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

[krazen1211]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

It is also the same math that dictates the Dems get 0 seats in Oklahoma.  

And, once again, if you have an actual argument with the points raised in the article, make it.  No, "lol" isn't an argument.

What is the purpose of arguing with someone who pretends that large swaths of the country do not exist?

[krazen1211]

Neither I nor Mr. Wang have done any such thing.  Now, if you're trying to obliquely admit that your worldview ignore the existence of millions of Americans, and that therefore I shouldn't take you seriously, then very well.  I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Otherwise, explain yourself.

Obviously, his chart and graph ignores numerous states in the United States. So are you.

A more honest batch of non-liars would present the data for all the states.

[krazen1211]

The Massachusetts map is problematic for many reasons, but the idea that the Republicans would ever at any time stand more than a roughly even chance of winning a House seat in Massachusetts under a fair map is ludicrous as long as the United States continues to use single-member constituencies. The nature of the partisan distribution here is such that the only type of map that could possibly mirror the statewide vote would have to be among the most egregious Republican gerrymanders in the country.

His claim is that such a map wouldn't be an "egregious" partisan gerrymander, but, rather, a "just" gerrymander. His claim is that Maryland ought to be 7-1, and, if it takes spaghetti lines to achieve 7-1, then justice demands that it be done. Presumably, if he believes 8-1 is the just outcome in Massachusetts, then that would justify spaghetti lines to achieve.

That isn't my position. That is merely taking what he claimed seriously.

I just tried to make a McCain district on a map of Massachusetts. Any McCain district. I couldn't even get to six hundred thousand people.

I imagine a Romney district would be slightly easier. Slightly. A district that's winnable for the right kind of Republican could probably be done in one or two different areas, but there are districts in Massachusetts that are under far-flung but conceivable circumstances winnable for the right kind of Republican as it is.

The 'just' outcome in Massachusetts would probably be something like 7-2 or even 6-3, which isn't going to happen by any means. Even if we were to accept Wang's logic about Maryland and apply it to Massachusetts, this state's geography self-gerrymanders much more successfully than Maryland's does.

Certainly BSB is quite aware of that.

One can either make a claim based on simple mathematical ratios, or based on geography. One should not bounce between such claims in an arbitrary and haphazard manner. In what is a curiosity, the Republican Party's 10% of the house vote in Massachusetts and 25% of the vote in Maryland, sums up to 3 seats, and the geography of such points to all 3 seats coming from Maryland for a combined seating of 14-3. If such is your thing anyway.

The mathematics does not change regardless of whether such results are the product of natural order or the product of a vicious gerrymander. If such is your thing anyway.

Alternatively, one could simply acknowledge that Gerrymandering dates back to Patrick Henry and James Madison, and let the states draw maps as they see fit, and acknowledge the vicious gerrymanders as they come.

[krazen1211]

In regards to Texas and especially Arizona, the main factor there is "rotten boroughs", the turnout in Democratic Hispanic areas is FAR below in Republican areas. Especially in Arizona, where Ed Pastor's district has some of the worst turnout in the country, and is both the most Democratic district in Arizona (in percentage) and least Democratic (in raw votes). But it elects just as many representatives as a high turnout Republican district does. I haven't looked at the numbers for the Hispanic districts in Texas, but similar ones wouldn't surprise me.

4 Texas Democrats (TX-15, TX-29, TX-33, TX-34) received less than 90000 votes. Texas Republicans won most of their seats with 150000 to 200000 votes and many of the people they defeated by 20+ points got more than 90000 votes.

[krazen1211]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NoCryinginRedistricting.pdf


The 1970s and 1980s congressional elections were held with maps drawn to provide
Democrats a significant partisan cushion.  The following table looks at notable years in
elections held under the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990 maps.

During the Reagan sweep in 1980, Republicans essentially broke even in terms of the
two-party vote cast (49%), yet were only able to win 44% of the seats…the same type
five point gap being bemoaned today.



Where were whining babies like Sam Wang for those 20 years and how were 10 congressional elections excluded from his document?