Judges overturn Virginia gerrymanding, redraw congressional map

[jimmy olsen]

Death to gerrymanding!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judges-pick-new-congressional-map-for-virginia/2016/01/07/b3d8f75e-b585-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html

Judges pick new congressional map for Virginia

Alan Suderman | AP January 7 at 5:57 PM

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal court has picked a new congressional map for Virginia that significantly changes the racial makeup of two districts, but could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel on Thursday ordered the state to implement a new redistricting map for the 2016 election. The move comes after the panel concluded for a second time last year that legislators in 2012 illegally packed black voters into the 3rd Congressional District, represented by Democrat Bobby Scott.

The judges initially ordered the General Assembly to redraw the lines, but when lawmakers balked, the judges hired an expert to help them do it themselves.

The new map significantly alters Scott's district and the 4th Congressional District, represented by Republican Randy Forbes.

Scott's district, which currently stretches from Richmond to the Tidewater area with a certain area connected loosely only by the James River, is made more compact and goes from having a black voting-age population of 56 percent to 45 percent.


Forbes' neighboring district in southeast Virginia sees a nine percent jump in its black voting-age population, going from 31 percent to 40 percent.

Scott praised the court's ruling, noting that the new map is similar to what he recommended in 1991 when he served in the state Senate.

"I am pleased that the court has imposed a new congressional map that fixes the unconstitutional racial gerrymander of Virginia's 3rd Congressional District," he said in a statement.

Forbes did not immediately return a request for comment.

Redistricting has been a hotly contested issue in Virginia, as Democrats have alleged that Republicans have unfairly gerrymandered a swing state to their advantage. In Virginia, Republicans control 8 out of 11 congressional districts and both chambers of the General Assembly despite the fact that GOP candidates haven't won statewide office since 2009.

Democrats have had mixed results in the courts. In October, a different panel of judges ruled that the Virginia House of Delegates did not illegally pack black voters into a dozen legislative districts.

It's unclear if Thursday's order will stick. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in November to hear an appeal by Virginia Republicans who want to preserve the map approved in 2012. The high court justices are set to hear arguments on the case in February or March.


Republicans had asked the three-judge panel to delay until after the 2016 election, but the judges denied that request saying it would be unfair and give Republicans "the fruits of victory for another election cycle, even if they lose in the Supreme Court."

___

[Razgovory]

Gerrymandering?  In Otto's state?  He said that was just the natural borders of districts.

[mongers]

Gerrymandering?  In Otto's state?  He said that was just the natural borders of districts.

True fact Gerry Mandering was a British early 1960s easy listening singer, had his own light entertainment TV show, until the mid-60s when the cultural changes made is look out of date and it was dropped.

No idea what he went on to do, maybe you could say it was another casualty of the 1960s?
Perhaps he's still alive and living in an Eastbourne retirement home and in a few weeks someone will google his name and point him in the direction of this thread, I'll then get sued by him for libel?

[Martinus]

Historical issues aside (which means that it is unlikely to ever be changed), what are the bona fide benefits of the "first past the post" system compared to the proportional system? It used to be pointed out sometimes that the former means the elected official has to be closer to the people, but it seems to me that the "first past the post" system frequently leads to a number of districts becoming uncontested, which really tends to destroy that benefit.

[grumbler]

True fact Gerry Mandering was a British early 1960s easy listening singer, had his own light entertainment TV show, until the mid-60s when the cultural changes made is look out of date and it was dropped.

No idea what he went on to do, maybe you could say it was another casualty of the 1960s?
Perhaps he's still alive and living in an Eastbourne retirement home and in a few weeks someone will google his name and point him in the direction of this thread, I'll then get sued by him for libel?

True fact:  he went by the name "Mr. Gerry Mandering" to avoid the confusion.  I don't know that that was his actual name, though.  It could have been a stage name.

[grumbler]

Historical issues aside (which means that it is unlikely to ever be changed), what are the bona fide benefits of the "first past the post" system compared to the proportional system? It used to be pointed out sometimes that the former means the elected official has to be closer to the people, but it seems to me that the "first past the post" system frequently leads to a number of districts becoming uncontested, which really tends to destroy that benefit.

"First past the post" makes sense if your legislators are supposed to represent their constituents, rather than the party (i.e. voters are selecting an individual, not voting for a party).  In a parliamentary system, proportional representation makes sense. 

STV makes sense in a non-parliamentary system.

[The Brain]

It's not the "congressional map". It's just "map". FFS

[Martinus]

Historical issues aside (which means that it is unlikely to ever be changed), what are the bona fide benefits of the "first past the post" system compared to the proportional system? It used to be pointed out sometimes that the former means the elected official has to be closer to the people, but it seems to me that the "first past the post" system frequently leads to a number of districts becoming uncontested, which really tends to destroy that benefit.

"First past the post" makes sense if your legislators are supposed to represent their constituents, rather than the party (i.e. voters are selecting an individual, not voting for a party).  In a parliamentary system, proportional representation makes sense. 

STV makes sense in a non-parliamentary system.

Yes, but doesn't the prevalence of uncontested districts which are quite common in all FPTP democracies belie this point? I understand that in such districts people vote according to party lines and not personalities.

[grumbler]

Yes, but doesn't the prevalence of uncontested districts which are quite common in all FPTP democracies belie this point? I understand that in such districts people vote according to party lines and not personalities.

I'm not sure which FPTP democracies you are drawing data from, but in the US the number of uncontested House seats is much lower today than it historically has been.  This is probably due to the vast increase in the amount of money being spent on elections, which means that money has increased in importance, and personality decreased - the main cause for uncontested seats historically was the acknowledgement that a given congressman was just too popular to effectively oppose - though there was some political machine seats that weren't opposed because one party had rigged things their way too effectively.

[DGuller]

Yes, but doesn't the prevalence of uncontested districts which are quite common in all FPTP democracies belie this point? I understand that in such districts people vote according to party lines and not personalities.

I'm not sure which FPTP democracies you are drawing data from, but in the US the number of uncontested House seats is much lower today than it historically has been.  This is probably due to the vast increase in the amount of money being spent on elections, which means that money has increased in importance, and personality decreased - the main cause for uncontested seats historically was the acknowledgement that a given congressman was just too popular to effectively oppose - though there was some political machine seats that weren't opposed because one party had rigged things their way too effectively.

That's not quite the case.  The House reelection rates are indeed at historic highs.  It could be that the seats are indeed contested, just never successfully, however.

[grumbler]

That's not quite the case.  The House reelection rates are indeed at historic highs.  It could be that the seats are indeed contested, just never successfully, however.

That's not quite the case.  The numbers of lawyers in the House are indeed at historic highs.

[jimmy olsen]

Historical issues aside (which means that it is unlikely to ever be changed), what are the bona fide benefits of the "first past the post" system compared to the proportional system? It used to be pointed out sometimes that the former means the elected official has to be closer to the people, but it seems to me that the "first past the post" system frequently leads to a number of districts becoming uncontested, which really tends to destroy that benefit.

"First past the post" makes sense if your legislators are supposed to represent their constituents, rather than the party (i.e. voters are selecting an individual, not voting for a party).  In a parliamentary system, proportional representation makes sense. 

STV makes sense in a non-parliamentary system.

Yes, but doesn't the prevalence of uncontested districts which are quite common in all FPTP democracies belie this point? I understand that in such districts people vote according to party lines and not personalities.

There would be significantly fewer such districts if Gerrymandering was not allowed, and if the one man one vote ideal was taken seriously and the Wyoming rule required.

[Martinus]

Ok but whether the districts are contested or not, isn't it the case today that in most cases voters in practice vote for the party, not for the person? How many voters actually know something about their representative, as oppose to simply voting for whomever is supported by the party they support?

[grumbler]

Ok but whether the districts are contested or not, isn't it the case today that in most cases voters in practice vote for the party, not for the person? How many voters actually know something about their representative, as oppose to simply voting for whomever is supported by the party they support?

The party loyalists get to cast their effective vote in the primaries.  Their general election vote is determined by party loyalty.

But that's only a fairly small percentage of voters.  In every system you will have those types.

As for how many people know something about their representatives, it's fairly high in the US, I'd say.  There's lots of coverage and lots of communication from the representatives during their term in office.  Poland, I can't speak to.

[Berkut]

Ok but whether the districts are contested or not, isn't it the case today that in most cases voters in practice vote for the party, not for the person?

I don't think that is the case in the US. The "My party no matter what" voters are not the majority, I don't think. It might seem that way from Languish, but the DGs are the exception more than the rule.

The rule is more not voting at all if there isn't something compelling more than anything else.