New PA Maps In Effect

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This map is terrible at least for three reasons:
1) it mixes York and Lancaster
2) it splits Bucks
3) there's a seat running from Reading to inner-ring Philadelphia suburbs.

Proportionality matters but this is overdoing it.

But it splits less counties then any of the other maps and it is more compact.

Compactness isn't the only thing that matters. I'd rather have Bucks whole and the Lehigh Valley whole rather than have a marginally more compact map.
PA has many parochial rules that have to be followed when one crafts a congressional district map.

The Supreme Court said nothing about having to follow old rules. Luckily the special master drawing the new map is a professor from Stanford and probably knows nothing of these weird rules.

Why does Bucks County get to be kept whole due to tradition, but Delaware and Montgomery can be chopped into a million different pieces. Why are some counties given preferential treatment over the other? Same for municipalities and towns. To me there is no difference is splitting Pittsburgh in two than splitting a random town in Clearfield County in two.

Bucks is a county that is close to quota anyway. It makes sense to parcel up MontCo not only because it's in a central location in SEPA but also because it's bigger than one CD. While Bucks is to the far Northeast in relative terms, and below quota.
Whether you like it or not, these parochial rules are backed up by the total populations and the physical locations on these counties on the map.

[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.

[Gass3268]

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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[Gass3268]

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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

Neither of us knows what the framers would've thought about gerrymandering if they saw how broken and dysfunctional Congress has become, so you can get off your pseudo-high horse.  Anyway, there's really no reason the courts shouldn't impose criteria for a fair map.  Gerrymandering has gotten out of control and we've reached the point where the courts need to intervene because our democratic institutions are not functioning properly.  If you get diagnosed with liver cancer, you don't refuse all medical treatment just because your parents didn't intend for you to get liver cancer when you were born.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Terrible map.

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

And?

[Gass3268]

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.

And?

I am saying that based on the principles put forward by the PASC, Princeton D Compact is the best map that has been presented so far.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

Yeah and I can draw a better map that cuts 7 counties and 0 municipalities. This map sucks not because of the number of municipalities and counties it cuts, but because which ones it does.

But I will argue from a different angle. The purpose of this map is a D-gerry light, cracking Philly and Pitt to create a equal representative map. This entire argument is bogus. Some states are simply geographically biased towards one party or another. That is how it is. Correcting is like saying  the most important thing that matters is partisanship, not geographic location, not communities of interest, not race, not the historical lines of the seat. Nope, the most important thing is how you vote. I mean when asked, people will always identify themselves as a democrat or a republican first, before identifying as a Pennsylvanian, or from Philadelphia, or from Appalacia, etc. (/s) Some states lean left in geography, some states lean right. Pennsylvania, and much of the midwest leans right. And you just have to accept that. Under a fair map across the nation, following all current rules and minimizing county cuts (I have it) these state biases even out.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

And?

The standard isn’t “what does tim turner think is and isn’t ‘dumb,’” it’s what best satisfies the criteria given by the PASC in its ruling.

[Nyvin]

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.

[Gass3268]

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.

Yeah and I can draw a better map that cuts 7 counties and 0 municipalities. This map sucks not because of the number of municipalities and counties it cuts, but because which ones it does.

But I will argue from a different angle. The purpose of this map is a D-gerry light, cracking Philly and Pitt to create a equal representative map. This entire argument is bogus. Some states are simply geographically biased towards one party or another. That is how it is. Correcting is like saying  the most important thing that matters is partisanship, not geographic location, not communities of interest, not race, not the historical lines of the seat. Nope, the most important thing is how you vote. I mean when asked, people will always identify themselves as a democrat or a republican first, before identifying as a Pennsylvanian, or from Philadelphia, or from Appalacia, etc. (/s) Some states lean left in geography, some states lean right. Pennsylvania, and much of the midwest leans right. And you just have to accept that. Under a fair map across the nation, following all current rules and minimizing county cuts (I have it) these state biases even out.

I still support your map the best. I'm just saying that this map is the best of all those that were presented to the Special Master. If anything it shows how little effort the partisans put into the maps they gave the court.

[MT Treasurer]

Given the make-up of the PASC and Wolf being governor there isn’t anything Republicans can do to win this one, so what will be the most likely outcome? 10D, 8R? Or 9D, 9R?

[Oryxslayer]

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.

Yeah and I can draw a better map that cuts 7 counties and 0 municipalities. This map sucks not because of the number of municipalities and counties it cuts, but because which ones it does.

But I will argue from a different angle. The purpose of this map is a D-gerry light, cracking Philly and Pitt to create a equal representative map. This entire argument is bogus. Some states are simply geographically biased towards one party or another. That is how it is. Correcting is like saying  the most important thing that matters is partisanship, not geographic location, not communities of interest, not race, not the historical lines of the seat. Nope, the most important thing is how you vote. I mean when asked, people will always identify themselves as a democrat or a republican first, before identifying as a Pennsylvanian, or from Philadelphia, or from Appalacia, etc. (/s) Some states lean left in geography, some states lean right. Pennsylvania, and much of the midwest leans right. And you just have to accept that. Under a fair map across the nation, following all current rules and minimizing county cuts (I have it) these state biases even out.

I still support your map the best. I'm just saying that this map is the best of all those that were presented to the Special Master. If anything it shows how little effort the partisans put into the maps they gave the court.

In this we are at agreement. The fact a D-Gerry-lite is more compact in every way than the partisan drawn maps shows how little effort they put into their plans.

[Gass3268]

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.

Yeah and I can draw a better map that cuts 7 counties and 0 municipalities. This map sucks not because of the number of municipalities and counties it cuts, but because which ones it does.

But I will argue from a different angle. The purpose of this map is a D-gerry light, cracking Philly and Pitt to create a equal representative map. This entire argument is bogus. Some states are simply geographically biased towards one party or another. That is how it is. Correcting is like saying  the most important thing that matters is partisanship, not geographic location, not communities of interest, not race, not the historical lines of the seat. Nope, the most important thing is how you vote. I mean when asked, people will always identify themselves as a democrat or a republican first, before identifying as a Pennsylvanian, or from Philadelphia, or from Appalacia, etc. (/s) Some states lean left in geography, some states lean right. Pennsylvania, and much of the midwest leans right. And you just have to accept that. Under a fair map across the nation, following all current rules and minimizing county cuts (I have it) these state biases even out.

I still support your map the best. I'm just saying that this map is the best of all those that were presented to the Special Master. If anything it shows how little effort the partisans put into the maps they gave the court.

In this we are at agreement. The fact a D-Gerry-lite is more compact in every way than the partisan drawn maps shows how little effort they put into their plans.

I think the difference is that Princeton map gave no thought to incumbents, while for every single partisan map it was their first consideration.

[Oryxslayer]

Given the make-up of the PASC and Wolf being governor there isn’t anything Republicans can do to win this one, so what will be the most likely outcome? 10D, 8R? Or 9D, 9R?

Probably none of these, or at least we don't know right now. PA geography has a bunch of areas like Bucks, the Lehigh Valley, and Chester where the only available districts are competitive/tossup ones at best. So it will be more like 5 to 6 safe D, 7-9 safe R, 3-6 Tossup/competitive seats. We will see what the special master does next week...

[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?

[Nyvin]

Given the make-up of the PASC and Wolf being governor there isn’t anything Republicans can do to win this one, so what will be the most likely outcome? 10D, 8R? Or 9D, 9R?

Probably none of these, or at least we don't know right now. PA geography has a bunch of areas like Bucks, the Lehigh Valley, and Chester where the only available districts are competitive/tossup ones at best. So it will be more like 5 to 6 safe D, 7-9 safe R, 3-6 Tossup/competitive seats. We will see what the special master does next week...

Thanks. Honestly, I’d be very surprised if it’s better than 9D/9R for Republicans. I guess something like 11D/7R is quite possible after 2018.

I doubt it,  Philadelphia is too much of a natural vote sink in what's otherwise a 50/50 state.

[Virginiá]

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.

[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.

[Atlas Force]

This was originally posted in another thread in response to King Lear, but I feel it just as easily applies to cinyc in this thread:

WE COULD AT LEAST TRY FOR, YOU KNOW, 7 OR 8 INSTEAD OF GETTING ONE F**KING THIRD OF THE SEATS IN A DEM LEANING SWING STATE.

[Virginiá]

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.

Where did I say I was OK with Democratic gerrymanders? The only actual part of this I've struggled with is the idea of Democrats unilaterally disarming while scores of Republican-controlled states privately mock their stupidity as they gather their people in some musty lawyer's office to abuse their position in order to lock in an unfair advantage meant to thwart the will of the voters to which they are allegedly accountable. So don't be surprised if I'd prefer seeing Republicans lose their cartographer's pen first. It doesn't mean I still don't want my party to put an end to brazen political corruption.

Personally, I'd rather Congress just pass a bill mandating independent commissions for Congressional redistricting for all states at the same time. Then we wouldn't have this problem where each side is leery of giving it up before the other does. But I think we both know that's not going to happen anytime soon. Both parties (especially Republicans this time around) love to marginalize the role of gerrymandering in their victories, but they wouldn't be clinging to this power for dear life if it meant so little. None of these lawmakers deserve that power.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Virginia is right, but part of the problem goes beyond redistricting. The fact that these states have so few states no, means communities and voters are marginalized simply because they are two small to control a district so there end up being these arguments over who basically gets screwed.

That is why it is not enough to just have commissions, you also need strict sets of criteria and rules for the commissions and you need to increase the size of the House.