Things would be almost as lopsided even if districts are drawn up by computers strictly on basis of population.

This is due to the geographic concentration of "blues."

See data here.

https://services.math.duke.edu/proje...andering/#rSum

The summary is pretty succinct. Gerrymandering matters but it's not the primary cause of polarization. The concentration of Democrats (specifically minorities) is.

So only some of the seats are stolen then?

Notice though, that the only reason you can say this is due to the randomness of when someone dies.

Question. Would the Republican's stalling have been more defensible if Scalia had been assassinated?

Uh, no. The reason he can say that is the Republicans completely broke with precedent and refused to even consider a perfectly well-qualified nominee.

Increasing the number of competitive districts is futile due to natural sorting. But fair districting would reduce the gap between statewide % of the vote and % of representatives.

It's worth noting that the democrats have had no issue with gerrymandering in Wisconsin, except when the process is now hurting them.

Wisconsin's rapid and decisive shift to the right wing is a fairly recent development. Our major cities and many local governments have been run by self-described socialists for the better part of a century, and democrats held the state legislature for decades. Dems were totally cool playing the redistricting game during that time to keep their majority, but now after some election upsets and a bit of a snowball effect as a result of them completely losing their minds in the past decade, I guess the standards have changed.

My question is how do they justify their stance that we should shove all the latinos of Milwaukee into a single district to avoid diluting their vote, while also maintaining that the current districts are somehow unconstitutional? All I hear is, "Gerrymandering is totally cool, until it actually affects our ability to gain power."

HEY GUYS! THE LIBS DO IT TOO! LOL Isno.

One would think that if DEMS DO IT TOOOOOOOOOO upset you so much, you might welcome the constitutional ban on gerrymandering, but something tells me that won't be the case.

Do you have anything useful to add?

Perhaps you can enlighten me why redrawing districts based on race is totally okay, except when it's not?

So, what really upsets you about this case is that politicians who are now long out of power are inconsistent with what liberals currently want?

If you're asking if I bitched when I was redistricted last time Dems drew the lines, where my vote is largely meaningless, then the answer is no. I did not.

You win some, you lose some. That's how the game is played.

If democrats want to win more seats, they need to alter their message to be more palatable to a wider audience. Their stranglehold on high-density population centers wins them statewide races. Districts are important for the same reason the electoral college is.


Nothing upsets me about this case. SCOTUS is going to fix the lower court ruling. Judge-shopping is just another reason WAAF.

Like Wookie said, if it upsets you so much, you should hope the SCOTUS finds gerrymandering unconstitutional.

Is that what you want? Because that's what we want. So why are you arguing with us?

If that's not what you want, then why are you bringing up "Dem Liberals do it too!"?

State-level proportional representation for House districts is the obvious solution to the gerrymandering issue. Not sure why no one supports it.

Entrenching the power of slaveholders?

Yesterday, you didn't even know what it was. Stop pretending like you're in any way invested in this issue. You should consider changing your name or undertitle to, "Me too!" It's like the annoying 12 year old cousin who follows the older group of kids around, adding inane and unrelated insults directed toward the "enemy" gang.

I still fail to see what the end-game is here. This whole issue reeks of false outrage.

jfc inso

A bowling league is a great way to meet people.

An interesting connection. I just started reading The Color of Law, a book about segregation.

The author's intent is to argue that racial segregation between blacks and whites in the U.S. is almost entirely de jure (created by law and government institutions) rather than de facto (created for example by individual racism, e.g. "white flight" and the like). The point being that several Supreme Court decisions involving government anti-segregation actions have hinged on the idea that the courts could intervene to remedy de jure segregation, but not de facto segregation (cf. this case).

So, the author would presumably argue that even if the reason Democrats have more "wasted votes" than Republicans is segregation and not gerrymandering, it should still be considered unconstitutional because the segregation is the result of law and actions taken by government institutions.

With the Citizens United ruling having already destroyed the democratic process, is this really going to make all that much of a difference?

I do think some measure of regionalism is important, although it obviously goes way too far right now. Voters in Sw Virginia have vey different interests from those in Fairfax county.

The various state legislatures are probably more impacted than the house, anyway, so another solution would be needed for them.

I'm holding out some hope that this decision comes out the right way.

I just started Color of Law too. We should have a book club.

Does the Color of Law talk about how voters complain about who is in Congress & the job they're doing & then reelect over 80% of the same pin heads every 2 years? 95% in 2016?!
"The best argument against a democracy, is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter." - Winston Churchill
“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill

As someone who lives in a state (the most populous in the country, in fact) that's controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats but does not gerrymander despite having the ability to do so: **** off.

I think the obvious counterargument (which I'm sympathetic to) is that districts actually give you someone who represents your area and is accountable to you, directly, at a more personal level (unless you live in, like, Wyoming) than a Senator who represents your entire state. How would reps be assigned to areas based on a statewide proportional model?

? please define right.