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
QuoteJudges 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."
___
Gerrymandering? In Otto's state? He said that was just the natural borders of districts.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2016, 07:29:57 PM
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? :unsure:
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.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2016, 08:57:17 PM
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? :unsure:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 01:38:28 AM
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.
It's not the "congressional map". It's just "map". FFS
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 01:38:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 08:33:31 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 10:55:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 08:33:31 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 11:05:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 08:33:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 01:38:28 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 11:51:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 11:51:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2016, 12:17:00 PM
It might seem that way from Languish, but the DGs are the exception more than the rule.
I don't understand why you have the constant need to post such dumb provocative posts.
Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs." The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span. I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong. As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php)
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 12:19:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2016, 12:17:00 PM
It might seem that way from Languish, but the DGs are the exception more than the rule.
I don't understand why you have the constant need to post such dumb provocative posts.
Because he's a jackass, that's why. Party loyalty typically doesn't carry as much weight in local elections since "big issues" are not relevant. The Sheriff or judge doesn't have much say on foreign policy or federal issues.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 12:53:05 PM
Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs." The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span. I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong. As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php)
It plateaued for the last couple of decades, and it's natural since you can't go much higher than 90% anyway, people want to die or cash in eventually. But if you look back further, it's actually historically very high: http://research.policyarchive.org/265.pdf.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 12:53:05 PM
Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs." The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span. I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong. As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php)
It plateaued for the last couple of decades, and it's natural since you can't go much higher than 90% anyway, people want to die or cash in eventually. But if you look back further, it's actually historically very high: http://research.policyarchive.org/265.pdf.
So, you are saying that it isn't at "historic highs." Yes, that was my point. And it didn't plateau the 'last couple of decades." It averaged higher in 80, 82, and 84 than in 10, 12, and 14. Your source shows that re-election rates for incumbents were higher in 1790-1810 (the first two decade of data) than in 1974-1994 (the last two decades of data). There were years of lower re-election, but the present is part of a typical era, not an atypical one.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 12:53:05 PM
Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs." The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span. I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong. As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php)
It plateaued for the last couple of decades, and it's natural since you can't go much higher than 90% anyway, people want to die or cash in eventually. But if you look back further, it's actually historically very high: http://research.policyarchive.org/265.pdf.
So, you are saying that it isn't at "historic highs." Yes, that was my point. And it didn't plateau the 'last couple of decades." It averaged higher in 80, 82, and 84 than in 10, 12, and 14. Your source shows that re-election rates for incumbents were higher in 1790-1810 (the first two decade of data) than in 1974-1994 (the last two decades of data). There were years of lower re-election, but the present is part of a typical era, not an atypical one.
I am saying they are at historic highs, if you don't zoom in into meaningless statistical noise and look at the trend instead. The difference of an odd percent or two is not really significant on the big scale of things, especially when you compare the new normal of around 90% against the 60%-70% rates that were observed previously. The reelection rate has never been hovering around 90% until the last few decades.
Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 03:07:26 PM
I am saying they are at historic highs, if you don't zoom in into meaningless statistical noise and look at the trend instead. The difference of an odd percent or two is not really significant on the big scale of things, especially when you compare the new normal of around 90% against the 60%-70% rates that were observed previously. The reelection rate has never been hovering around 90% until the last few decades.
I see. It is clear that you don't know what "historic highs mean if you think that the re-election rate today is at "historic highs." What the phrase actually means is that it is higher than it has been in history... you know, historic. It clearly isn't that, unless you arbitrarily declare some atypical period to be "historic."
I suppose you could zoom into meaningless detail and try to argue that the 90+% re-election rates of the pre-1840 period, the 1930s, and 1960+ don't count. Or argue, as you do, that the 7 elections in which the rate was below 70% is "history" and the 107 of them where it was above 70% are not, but that's just bullshit. We are not at historic highs of incumbent re-elections in the House. A look at the data will verify that.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2016, 03:19:53 PM
Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.
Okay... Sure... Whatever...
*backs up*
*turns and runs away*
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 03:43:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 03:07:26 PM
I am saying they are at historic highs, if you don't zoom in into meaningless statistical noise and look at the trend instead. The difference of an odd percent or two is not really significant on the big scale of things, especially when you compare the new normal of around 90% against the 60%-70% rates that were observed previously. The reelection rate has never been hovering around 90% until the last few decades.
I see. It is clear that you don't know what "historic highs mean if you think that the re-election rate today is at "historic highs." What the phrase actually means is that it is higher than it has been in history... you know, historic. It clearly isn't that, unless you arbitrarily declare some atypical period to be "historic."
I suppose you could zoom into meaningless detail and try to argue that the 90+% re-election rates of the pre-1840 period, the 1930s, and 1960+ don't count. Or argue, as you do, that the 7 elections in which the rate was below 70% is "history" and the 107 of them where it was above 70% are not, but that's just bullshit. We are not at historic highs of incumbent re-elections in the House. A look at the data will verify that.
I do look at the data as a statistician, not as a computer program's max() function. That means smoothing out the noise to get at the signal. Apart from that, are we actually discussing the same numbers? From the numbers I can see, the pre-1840 period reelection rate never got above 69%.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2016, 03:19:53 PM
Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.
Okay... Sure... Whatever...
*backs up*
*turns and runs away*
Don't make promises you can't keep grumbles. :(
:XD:
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 03:54:23 PM
I do look at the data as a statistician, not as a computer program's max() function. That means smoothing out the noise to get at the signal. Apart from that, are we actually discussing the same numbers? From the numbers I can see, the pre-1840 period reelection rate never got above 69%.
I don't think you are actually looking at the data at all. If you examine your pdf source, it shows the re-election rate for incumbents in 1840 of 82.8% in 1938, 75.5. in 1836, 81.9. It's all right there in table 1. The date is the first column, the "percent winning reelection" is the seventh column. The 75.5% number is the lowest of any of the years prior to 1840. Even a statistician should be able to read a simple table.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2016, 04:07:42 PM
Don't make promises you can't keep grumbles. :(
Okay, grandpa. Ill remember and heed that advice. :)
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 03:54:23 PM
I do look at the data as a statistician, not as a computer program's max() function. That means smoothing out the noise to get at the signal. Apart from that, are we actually discussing the same numbers? From the numbers I can see, the pre-1840 period reelection rate never got above 69%.
I don't think you are actually looking at the data at all. If you examine your pdf source, it shows the re-election rate for incumbents in 1840 of 82.8% in 1938, 75.5. in 1836, 81.9. It's all right there in table 1. The date is the first column, the "percent winning reelection" is the seventh column. The 75.5% number is the lowest of any of the years prior to 1840. Even a statistician should be able to read a simple table.
I'm looking at "percent of House re-elected" column. Looking at the percentage of people who stand for re-election and win is misleading, since very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2016, 11:51:40 AM
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?
Even in cases where one party is completely dominant, primary elections are often heavily contested. For example, my home county as so heavily Democratic when I was growing up that it was rare that any Republican actually filed for any offices that were elected on a county-wide basis, but there were usually several Democrats running in the primary for each such office.
And yes, a lot of people do know there representatives, especially once you get past the federal level. The first election that I was eligible to vote in, there were more than a dozen Democrats running in the primary for our county's 3 seats in the state House of Delegates (at least 8 of them were serious candidates) and I personally knew all of them at least slightly, and I was just a high school nobody.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2016, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2016, 03:19:53 PM
Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.
Okay... Sure... Whatever...
*backs up*
*turns and runs away*
Don't make promises you can't keep grumbles. :(
Cut him some slack, most people his age can't hobble half that fast.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 04:48:49 PM
I'm looking at "percent of House re-elected" column. Looking at the percentage of people who stand for re-election and win is misleading, since very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.
So Mister Statistics was looking at the wrong data all along? How unsurprising.
Percentage of House returned is a completely different statistic, and one for which you have presented no recent data whatsoever. It's driver isn't how advantageous it is to be an incumbent, but rather the increasing "professionalization" of politics starting in the Gilded Age. The percentage of House member that are freshmen (i.e. not returned) was 14% in 2014 and 17% in 2012, so returned percentages are 86% and 83% respectively.* Members returned are NOT at historic highs; these numbers are pretty typical for the post-WW2 era.
* https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf)
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2016, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 04:48:49 PM
I'm looking at "percent of House re-elected" column. Looking at the percentage of people who stand for re-election and win is misleading, since very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.
So Mister Statistics was looking at the wrong data all along? How unsurprising.
Percentage of House returned is a completely different statistic, and one for which you have presented no recent data whatsoever. It's driver isn't how advantageous it is to be an incumbent, but rather the increasing "professionalization" of politics starting in the Gilded Age. The percentage of House member that are freshmen (i.e. not returned) was 14% in 2014 and 17% in 2012, so returned percentages are 86% and 83% respectively.* Members returned are NOT at historic highs; these numbers are pretty typical for the post-WW2 era.
* https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf)
We were discussing the number of uncontested seats in the House. It's hard to make a case that a seat is uncontested when it's not even defended by the incumbent.
Yes, we can debate the confounding factors that make one statistic or the other misleading in some ways, and there can be good discussion to be had. The next to last column can be misleading because it suffers from survival bias, but the last column can be misleading as it is a function of the general tendency to stand for reelection.
As for your last point, I already addressed it. There may be some statistical noise around the plateau, but the historical trend is that Congressmen stick around at far higher rates than they ever had in the past.
Just let him win. He'll never admit you are right, and he's annoying otherwise. If you keep pushing he might ignore you. :ph34r:
Letting him win would be to return an insult. So, no, he won't win. But yeah, I don't think this discussion is going to get any better from here on out, and turning the other cheek is starting to get tedious, so I'll cash out now.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 08:18:00 PM
We were discussing the number of uncontested seats in the House. It's hard to make a case that a seat is uncontested when it's not even defended by the incumbent.
There were 25 uncontested seats in the House in 2014. That's far below the average of around 80 in the fifty years through 1960 and even the average of around 50 in the next twenty years. That's due to the decline of machine politics and the electrification of the countryside. Massachusetts was the only state with significant numbers of uncontested seats (6 of the 9 that the state has) and it's no coincidence that Mass is famous for its Democratic machine.
So, even if you want to move the goalposts a third time, we still aren't at "historic highs."
QuoteYes, we can debate the confounding factors that make one statistic or the other misleading in some ways, and there can be good discussion to be had. The next to last column can be misleading because it suffers from survival bias, but the last column can be misleading as it is a function of the general tendency to stand for reelection.
As for your last point, I already addressed it. There may be some statistical noise around the plateau, but the historical trend is that Congressmen stick around at far higher rates than they ever had in the past.
Again, you ignore the data in favor of the narrative. Congressmen do not "stick around at far higher rates than they ever have in the past." That's simply not true, and the data shows that. They stuck around at higher rates in the 1980s than they do today. In the 1986 election, for instance, only 50 freshman Congressmen were elected, compared to 61 in 2014 and 73 in 2012. Service years for congressmen peaked in the 102nd Congress (elected 1990) and is significantly lower today. Your arguments are 20 years out of date.
Congressional service did climb significantly in the 20th Century as politicians became "professionals," but I think that everyone is aware of that.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 09:00:26 PM
Letting him win would be to return an insult. So, no, he won't win. But yeah, I don't think this discussion is going to get any better from here on out, and turning the other cheek is starting to get tedious, so I'll cash out now.
It's not a matter of "winning" and "losing." It is a matter of you pursuing a narrative and my pointing out that the data show that narrative to be false. We can end this now.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2016, 04:48:49 PM
very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.
I'm not sure that happens all that often (though it certainly does happen on occasion). I think it's more often the other way around--a previously "safe" seat becomes contested precisely because a popular, long-term Congressman decides to retire.