Quo Vadis GOP?

[DGuller]

Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?

To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

[Zoupa]

Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?

To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?

[DGuller]

Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?

To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?

No, that information is not included in the US census data files.

[Barrister]

I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

[Zoupa]

Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?

To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?

No, that information is not included in the US census data files.

I'm asking you for a prediction. What do YOU think would happen?

[The Brain]

[DGuller]

Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?

To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?

No, that information is not included in the US census data files.

I'm asking you for a prediction. What do YOU think would happen?

I cannot use the information I do not have to predict things, so no, I cannot predict what would happen in Congressional elections (which is what I presume you're asking about).

[Zoupa]

 

Ok then. I hope you use that same burden of proof for any and all statements you make going forward. No opinions or thoughts from you please. Only post things when you have a solid database to rely on.

Deal?

Okthnxbai.

[DGuller]

If you have election results from any year mapped to 2020 Census definitions of tracts, by all means send them my way, then it's a trivial exercise to run the numbers.  Without those numbers, I don't have anything to go on.

[Valmy]

I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.

[DGuller]

Ok then. I hope you use that same burden of proof for any and all statements you make going forward. No opinions or thoughts from you please. Only post things when you have a solid database to rely on.

Deal?

Okthnxbai.

As I already said multiple times, the issue is not with giving quick takes, the issue is with digging in when they're being challenged.  My opinion initially was also a quick take, I knew from experience that the issue wasn't as simple as it looked.  I went into my own analysis only because I wanted to go beyond quick takes for myself.

If I post a quick take on some legal question, and then Minsky opines on it with his legal expertise that challenges my lay opinion, should I insult him repeatedly and remind him that this forum is not the Supreme Court?  I don't think so.  I'm also not going to stop commenting on legal matters, I know that I can get things very wrong there, and somehow that doesn't make me go apeshit.

[Oexmelin]

I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.

[Zoupa]

I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.

How dare you. Where's the data that proves this statement????????

[Valmy]

I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.

Yeah modern gerrymandering goes a bit beyond what was generally accepted. It is one thing to guestimate how to benefit X group or X interest...it is another to scientifically draw a district to consistently get 51% of the vote every time.

[Zoupa]

Ok then. I hope you use that same burden of proof for any and all statements you make going forward. No opinions or thoughts from you please. Only post things when you have a solid database to rely on.

Deal?

Okthnxbai.

As I already said multiple times, the issue is not with giving quick takes, the issue is with digging in when they're being challenged.  My opinion initially was also a quick take, I knew from experience that the issue wasn't as simple as it looked.  I went into my own analysis only because I wanted to go beyond quick takes for myself.

If I post a quick take on some legal question, and then Minsky opines on it with his legal expertise that challenges my lay opinion, should I insult him repeatedly and remind him that this forum is not the Supreme Court?  I don't think so.  I'm also not going to stop commenting on legal matters, I know that I can get things very wrong there, and somehow that doesn't make me go apeshit.

Sure.