Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@bartab Tell you what, let’s get rid of gerrymandering for both Republicans and Democrats and see which party has more representatives in Congress and local governments afterwards.
@LewisBraham- Sounds good to me. Either party will try to shade the rules, but the Republicans have taken gerrymandering well past any logical or ethical limit. Anyone who doesn't see that the Republicans spend major efforts trying to suppress voters must be blind, stupid, or both. Even the right-leaning Supreme Court saw that in Pennsylvania.
I wouldn’t say it’s all political. I lived for a decade in a “smaller” big city with distinct ethic groupings. You would not believe the shenanigans perpetrated in plain sight. When I arrived, a pugnacious Irish Catholic had been mayor for some time. If you were from the right group, things would get done. For instance, if the city was paving a street, the parking lot of a Catholic church might just get paved. A black Baptist church? – Don’t be silly. And the people where I worked thought this was just fine. If “your people” were in charge, then of course you expected benefits. Then there was a kind of reformer Italian mayor, and things were still “ok.” But then – A black guy was elected. Even before he took office, you should have heard the gnashing of teeth about how some other ethic group would get (unfair) advantage.
And although your eyes are open, you might just as well be blind. I'm all for getting rid of Gerrymandering. I think it is horrible abuse by either party in power.
Once again we have an issue where "they do it too" seems to be the winning argument. As a 20 year MD resident I, a bleeding heart liberal, can confirm massive gerrymandering in the state. (I lived in district 1 the only district solidly Republican and the one I believe now looks a bit less gerrymandered that when I lived there.)
I object to gerrymandering wherever it is done because I was taught in school that it was a bad thing and it stuck. But I never could figure out how the lines could be drawn without some rule(s) that might be as objectionable as currently exist. (Also lived in the MS delta for 19 years so I get it about slicing up unwanted populations.) If the registered voters were 50-50, should the districts be made to produce a 50-50 result, on average, even if it required plucking/gerrymandering small groups from one side of the state to combine in a district with the other?
City populations make division without the appearance of gerrymander difficult as do areas of sparse population. How do you make the rules stick to just shapes when going from dense to sparse populations without predictable patterns? I used to bicycle in and around district 3 MD and it actually kind of makes a little sense if you know the pattern of suburb population around lower beltway Baltimore. That doesn't say it wasn't purely political, of course.
And the usual knee-jerk insults. Just remember: Feelings matter more than facts. If you feel climate change is a hoax, it doesn't matter what the science proves. And if you feel that both political parties are equally corrupt when it comes to gerrymandering, no amount of statistical evidence will be enough to dissuade you. Truthiness rules.
It just dawned on me that if this was an issue and gerrymandering by anyone was abhorrent to the general population it wouldn't have survived, much less gotten worse. What is a good test of gerrymandering? State houses with majority numbers that overwhelm the true makeup of the voters? What granularity? Party, race, sex, ???? I think I have seriously neglected reading what the courts say about measures.
Comments
just study up
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/372352-supreme-court-denies-stay-in-pa-gerrymandering-case-reports
If you were from the right group, things would get done. For instance, if the city was paving a street, the parking lot of a Catholic church might just get paved. A black Baptist church? – Don’t be silly. And the people where I worked thought this was just fine. If “your people” were in charge, then of course you expected benefits. Then there was a kind of reformer Italian mayor, and things were still “ok.”
But then – A black guy was elected. Even before he took office, you should have heard the gnashing of teeth about how some other ethic group would get (unfair) advantage.
"How the GOP Rigs Elections"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gop-rigs-elections-gerrymandering-voter-id-laws-dark-money-w515664
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-09/has-anyone-seen-the-president
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_3rd_congressional_district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I sense you need to read the OP and link
I object to gerrymandering wherever it is done because I was taught in school that it was a bad thing and it stuck. But I never could figure out how the lines could be drawn without some rule(s) that might be as objectionable as currently exist. (Also lived in the MS delta for 19 years so I get it about slicing up unwanted populations.) If the registered voters were 50-50, should the districts be made to produce a 50-50 result, on average, even if it required plucking/gerrymandering small groups from one side of the state to combine in a district with the other?
City populations make division without the appearance of gerrymander difficult as do areas of sparse population. How do you make the rules stick to just shapes when going from dense to sparse populations without predictable patterns? I used to bicycle in and around district 3 MD and it actually kind of makes a little sense if you know the pattern of suburb population around lower beltway Baltimore. That doesn't say it wasn't purely political, of course.