SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[Slander and/or Libel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Slander and/or Libel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nah, just gotta protect communities of interest brah

[Nyvin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

[politicallefty]

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

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

[cinyc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Municipal boundaries are not arbitrary. The city or town you live in matters. You have more in common with those who live in that city - tax policy, schools, zoning and land use - that you do with the rural areas you’d like to disenfranchise in the name of “fairness”, which (as always) just means electing more Democrats.

“Fairness” = proportionality - except where it would help Republicans, like in Massachusetts. Then, a “fair” map is imposssible.

You’re showing your partisan colors. And that’s okay. Because we’re all partisans. Just admit it.

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

[Nyvin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

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

[politicallefty]

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

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

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

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

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

[Nyvin]

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

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

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

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

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

[UncleSam]

Can we just use the districts from 538 and be done with it

The compact ones following county lines of course

Then everyone can stfu about this and get back to arguing about policy instead of systems

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

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

But why do the Dems deserve five seats lol

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveRogers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

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

But why do the Dems deserve five seats lol

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

There are plenty of criteria in addition to proportionality that the political branches of government should be able to consider. But discrimination based on a group’s political beliefs should not be a permissible criterion, period.

[Nyvin]

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

But why do the Dems deserve five seats lol

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

Okay fine...The Democrats have proportionality on their side for increasing the number of their in the state.

What exactly is the Republican defense of their current map?   Why do "they" deserve 10 seats?   

You can't just say something isn't perfect and then stay with the status quo...you need to show why the status quo is "Better"

[Slander and/or Libel]

Should it be permissible in our system for a state legislature to draw its own district boundaries, which entrench its power regardless of the collective desires of its constituents, and then tell those constituents, against whose opinions the legislature has shielded itself, that their only recourse is to appeal to that very legislature? That’s absolutely absurd.

[Badger]

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

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

And one that produces a whopping one, counted, one congressional seat shift away from the Republicans Nationwide. Arguing that this is a bipartisan issue considering how much Republicans swept the 2010 State elections and abused the living freak out of gerrymandering for the last decade is completely a historical factually inaccurate. Repair wrap as an aside, I'll point out that some poster on one of the political geography Maps, either here or on aad, posted a really good proposed Maryland map showing that compactly drawing districts could actually produce an all Democratic delegation out of the state without particular gerrymandering. I'm not proposing it, but Republicans really really need to quit whining and grasping for straws when calling this what about or both sides do it problem.

 I will repeat what literally dozens if not hundreds of progressives have posted time and time again to The resulting Silence of Republicans. We will gladly, instantly, trade you a new map in Maryland for new maps in Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Utah, etc etc etc etc etc

[All Along The Watchtower]

SCOTUS is a Non-Political Political Institution

[MarkD]

SCOTUS is a Non-Political Political Institution

Shouldn't that be a Political Non-Political Institution?

Well, either way, there has been too much politics corrupting the interpretation of the Constitution, and that has occurred because too many Presidents have wanted to use their power to appoint Justices as a political tool, rather than a search for the most objective interpreters of law. Look at President Herbert Hoover appointing Benjamin Cardozo in 1932 for an example of the right choice for the Court for the right reason. Look at Circuit Court Judge Learned Hand for an example of the kind of judge who should have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Choosing to appoint someone to the highest court of the land because the appointee is liberal, because they're conservative, because they're moderate is the wrong choice, leading to corruption of the Court. If we start insisting, to the presidential candidates, that they should be looking to the examples of Cardozo and Hand as what kind of people should be appointed, then maybe the Court will become a truly Non-Political Institution.