Quo Vadis GOP?

[DGuller]

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.

I think science is part of it, and just like with electronic surveillance, technology itself changes the issue.  However, I think another part of the problem is the predictability of the voters.  It's harder to gerrymander precisely if voters can shift from one party to another, and there is a lot less of that now than before.  You have to give yourself bigger margins, and with bigger margins comes less potential gain from packing and cracking.

[The Brain]

I avoid careful analysis like the plague. I just post whatever random BS I happen to think about.

[Malthus]

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.

Is there any political will to contract out drawing the borders of electoral districts to some sort of non-political administrative board, as it is done here in Canada?

[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.

Is there any political will to contract out drawing the borders of electoral districts to some sort of non-political administrative board, as it is done here in Canada?

Yes...but as with everything we do it is a state by state thing.

[DGuller]

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.

Is there any political will to contract out drawing the borders of electoral districts to some sort of non-political administrative board, as it is done here in Canada?

In some Democratic states, yes.  The practical outcome is that Democrats are unilaterally disarming by giving up seats in their own states without making GOP give up seats in their states.

[Oexmelin]

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.

Yes. I am quite convinced that democracy, much like justice, requires a healthy dose of unknowability to function properly.

[Barrister]

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.

Yes. I am quite convinced that democracy, much like justice, requires a healthy dose of unknowability to function properly.

I feel like voters have just gotten a lot more "hardened" compared to generations past.  You couldn't finely-tune your gerrymander because you couldn't predict voters well enough.  Or Reagan's 1984 49-state win has hardly the result of the electoral college map.

[Razgovory]

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.

Yes. I am quite convinced that democracy, much like justice, requires a healthy dose of unknowability to function properly.

I feel like voters have just gotten a lot more "hardened" compared to generations past.  You couldn't finely-tune your gerrymander because you couldn't predict voters well enough.  Or Reagan's 1984 49-state win has hardly the result of the electoral college map.

Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

[Barrister]

Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

[alfred russel]

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.

This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

DGuller is thinking about a mathematical solution that is objective: a provably maximally compact districts with equal populations. That will probably generate a lot of support among mathmeticians. But other "anti-gerrymander" advocates will want other stuff prioritized: I read a redistricting proposal to require the partisan skew of the median district to be equal to the partisan skew of the state - that has merits. The community approach above also has long standing support. A lot of people think that the outcome should somehow mimic proportional representation: Zoupa seems leaning in this direction. Others think each district should be roughly representative of the whole. Some want majority minority districts to ensure elected people aren't all white. Other people tend to think there should be carryforward of previous districts and you don't start from scratch every redistricting process. Probably most people haven't thought through the implications of any of these and on the surface support some combination.

You can game theory all of these scenarios out and support the version that best supports your team. Yeah you can get a nonpartisan commission to implement them but then the game just shifts to the marching orders you give them.

Obviously, there are sections of the country that have zero institutional commitment to anything other than drawing district lines to cement the control of the group in power, and there are two centuries of that practice being in place on an almost uninterrupted basis.

[Oexmelin]

There is actually a lot of work already being done in exploring those answers, including on Texas, by generating ensemble through thousands of alternate redistricting maps. The work of Moon Duchin, at Tufts, is worth keeping an eye on. https://mggg.org/

[Valmy]

This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

Those seem like different statements. Sure there is no universally agreed upon standard but since when must something be perfect or universally agreed upon? Very few issues have that going for them. But just because the perfect does not exist doesn't mean there can be no solution or that it is impossible to solve. The same technology and analytics that are currently make the drawing of the districts so corrupt can also be used to improve them, given a reasonably agreed upon set of principles.

[jimmy olsen]

Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

Raz is 100% correct. The rise of alternate reality right wing media has violently radicalized the Republican party.

[grumbler]

Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

Raz is 100% correct. The rise of alternate reality right wing media has violently radicalized the Republican party.

That's the result of the vast growth of cable news, which was never subject to the Fairness Doctrine.  It could also be noted that the vote to abolish the fairness Doctrine was supported by the Democratic members of the FCC and was unanimous.

[Malthus]

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.

This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

DGuller is thinking about a mathematical solution that is objective: a provably maximally compact districts with equal populations. That will probably generate a lot of support among mathmeticians. But other "anti-gerrymander" advocates will want other stuff prioritized: I read a redistricting proposal to require the partisan skew of the median district to be equal to the partisan skew of the state - that has merits. The community approach above also has long standing support. A lot of people think that the outcome should somehow mimic proportional representation: Zoupa seems leaning in this direction. Others think each district should be roughly representative of the whole. Some want majority minority districts to ensure elected people aren't all white. Other people tend to think there should be carryforward of previous districts and you don't start from scratch every redistricting process. Probably most people haven't thought through the implications of any of these and on the surface support some combination.

You can game theory all of these scenarios out and support the version that best supports your team. Yeah you can get a nonpartisan commission to implement them but then the game just shifts to the marching orders you give them.

Obviously, there are sections of the country that have zero institutional commitment to anything other than drawing district lines to cement the control of the group in power, and there are two centuries of that practice being in place on an almost uninterrupted basis.

It just seems a much lesser issue here, which leads me to believe that the problem is not insoluble - using a separate commission is simply a better process.

I mean, if it can be done, universally.