Quo Vadis GOP?

[The Larch]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.

[DGuller]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.

Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

[The Larch]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.

Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Did you read the article I posted?

[DGuller]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.

Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Oh my god, are you this obtuse and unbearable in RL as well?

A bit out of line, don't you think?

[The Larch]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.

Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Oh my god, are you this obtuse and unbearable in RL as well?

A bit out of line, don't you think?

Realized and already edited before you answered.

[The Minsky Moment]

We don't know whether minorities are dispersed enough for an 18% number of be unfair.  I do know that they are dispersed, but I don't know whether that dispersion would imply 5% or 35% to be the fair number, and neither does Zoupa or you.

I know that residential areas have high levels of segregation based on the public data, that the process followed to produce the maps was tainted, and the results are a map where most rural districts have nice straight lines and the urban districts where ethnic residential areas can be found look an 8.0 richter scale earthquake hit a well advanced game of twister. That is more than enough evidence to reach the conclusion that something improper happen.  That is what an argument based on facts looks like.

I don't need to postulate a particular percentage control number (a conceptual framework I don't really accept anyways) and I don't think a charitable reading of Zoupa's comment would interpret it in such a purely literal way. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Did you read the article I posted?

No because the only acceptable alternatives are having complete and 100% accurate household level data on every adult citizen in the state or complete ignorance of all facts.

[DGuller]

If you read the chain of replies, my reply was third, after Yi and Zoupa.  Yi asked a perfectly reasonable question, Zoupa countered it with a flawed assumption, I pointed out the flawed assumption.  I also made it repeatedly clear that I wasn't disputing the conclusion, but rather the usefulness of the 18% number as an argument towards that.  It didn't turn to shit until the words like "bizarre" or "sophistry" started flying around.

Numbers are not means to an end.  Numbers are powerful tools, but only if they're used with honest intent to discover the truth rather than just pile on.  If they're means to an end, then they lose credibility and with that their power.  It's easy to make honest mistakes, this stuff is very tricky even for professionals.  However, where this goes from an honest mistake to an attitude worthy of disdain is when you're made aware of the flaws and still choose to dig in.  I lose all respect for people who do that repeatedly, it's a mindset that I just can't fathom.

[PDH]

It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.

I think this is a misleading question, as evidenced by DGs marching about with great sound and fury.

The question should be more toward "Were these districts drawn to exclude minorities to an undue degree?" or even "Was there intent to strengthen a position of whites in the formation of these districts?"  A simple cold and analytical question such as yours seeks to withdraw the intent from the debate.

[DGuller]

It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.

I think this is a misleading question, as evidenced by DGs marching about with great sound and fury.

The question should be more toward "Were these districts drawn to exclude minorities to an undue degree?" or even "Was there intent to strengthen a position of whites in the formation of these districts?"  A simple cold and analytical question such as yours seeks to withdraw the intent from the debate.

Yi's question is prompted by the table that someone created and Syt linked.  Whenever someone creates a table, they typically have a point to make, they're not just showing off their Powerpoint formatting skills on a random data dump.  It's a very small table, so there is not a long list of potential points there.  If someone gives you these two columns, they're probably trying to say "here, looks at at this second column, see how obviously different it is from the first column?"

If you're going to make that argument, implicitly or explicitly, whether you're kicking a live horse or a dead horse, then it's natural for Yi or someone else to go "so what should that table look like if there were no funny business?"

[Eddie Teach]

They were drawn to make more Republican congressmen, race was only indirectly involved.

[PDH]

Yi's question is prompted by the table that someone created and Syt linked.  Whenever someone creates a table, they typically have a point to make, they're not just showing off their Powerpoint formatting skills on a random data dump.  It's a very small table, so there is not a long list of potential points there.  If someone gives you these two columns, they're probably trying to say "here, looks at at this second column, see how obviously different it is from the first column?"

If you're going to make that argument, implicitly or explicitly, whether you're kicking a live horse or a dead horse, then it's natural for Yi or someone else to go "so what should that table look like if there were no funny business?"

So one should not ask about intentions before determining the golden ratio of representation? 

[Valmy]

They were drawn to make more Republican congressmen, race was only indirectly involved.

Hey! I already said that.

[Razgovory]

If you read the chain of replies, my reply was third, after Yi and Zoupa.  Yi asked a perfectly reasonable question, Zoupa countered it with a flawed assumption, I pointed out the flawed assumption.  I also made it repeatedly clear that I wasn't disputing the conclusion, but rather the usefulness of the 18% number as an argument towards that.  It didn't turn to shit until the words like "bizarre" or "sophistry" started flying around.

Damn, I had hoped to get a rise of DG by claiming that he and I are the same person.  I should have just called him a "Bizarre Sofa".  I'm good at pushing people's buttons, but some people have weird buttons.

[grumbler]

So one should not ask about intentions before determining the golden ratio of representation?

Ask who?  The perps?  What are the odds that they will provide an honest answer?  Who knows their intent besides them?