Washington Post pops another Liberal balloon. Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is an easy punching bag, and it deserves its reputation. Every 10 years, Republicans and Democrats across the country draw the most favorable districts for their own political purposes, sometimes leaving contorted maps in their wakes.

But gerrymandering is also blamed too much for too many things — especially for our political polarization and for Republicans' strong advantage in the House. Just last week, an op-ed in The Washington Post blamed gerrymandering for breeding the conservative Freedom Caucus, which thwarted the GOP health-care bill.

Some new data from the Cook Political Report shows how overwrought this is.

Gerrymandering! Right!? Not so much.

If you look at the bottom of the chart, the biggest declines in competitive districts happened between elections — not after rounds of redistricting. In fact, 83 percent of the districts that moved out of the “swing” category — again, R+5 to D+5 — did so without being redrawn.

Only 14 districts moved from swing seats to solidly Republican — R+5 or greater — after redistricting, while 33 did so through the normal political evolution of the American voter.

LooseGoose wrote:Sorry Sweethearts, gerrymandering isn't the problem.

Why you should stop blaming gerrymandering so much. Really.

Gerrymandering is an easy punching bag, and it deserves its reputation. Every 10 years, Republicans and Democrats across the country draw the most favorable districts for their own political purposes, sometimes leaving contorted maps in their wakes.

But gerrymandering is also blamed too much for too many things — especially for our political polarization and for Republicans' strong advantage in the House. Just last week, an op-ed in The Washington Post blamed gerrymandering for breeding the conservative Freedom Caucus, which thwarted the GOP health-care bill.

Some new data from the Cook Political Report shows how overwrought this is.

Gerrymandering! Right!? Not so much.

If you look at the bottom of the chart, the biggest declines in competitive districts happened between elections — not after rounds of redistricting. In fact, 83 percent of the districts that moved out of the “swing” category — again, R+5 to D+5 — did so without being redrawn.

Only 14 districts moved from swing seats to solidly Republican — R+5 or greater — after redistricting, while 33 did so through the normal political evolution of the American voter.

And for a chaser some of your "more intelligent" liberals whining about gerrymandered Senate seats.   These are the people you libs revere while scoffing at the "country hicks"

GRR Spartan wrote:Pick a state and look how the Congressional districts are drawn.  Then pick  a district ct and look at the demographics of that particular district.  

This is just more news from Goosechev, the Russian Times stringer in Mio.  The same guy who posted the counties won map like it meant something.

https://www.census.gov/mycd/

Cameron wrote:I don't care if gerrymandering is effective or not, and I don't care who is responsible for it. It is stupid and it should stop. Whether it's actually harmful or not, it gives the perception of gamesmanship and impropriety, thereby reducing confidence and trust in our democratic process, so unless there is some good reason to continue the practice, it ought to be done away with with all possible haste.

LooseGoose wrote:Sorry Sweethearts, gerrymandering isn't the problem.

Why you should stop blaming gerrymandering so much. Really.

Gerrymandering is an easy punching bag, and it deserves its reputation. Every 10 years, Republicans and Democrats across the country draw the most favorable districts for their own political purposes, sometimes leaving contorted maps in their wakes.

But gerrymandering is also blamed too much for too many things — especially for our political polarization and for Republicans' strong advantage in the House. Just last week, an op-ed in The Washington Post blamed gerrymandering for breeding the conservative Freedom Caucus, which thwarted the GOP health-care bill.

Some new data from the Cook Political Report shows how overwrought this is.

Gerrymandering! Right!? Not so much.

If you look at the bottom of the chart, the biggest declines in competitive districts happened between elections — not after rounds of redistricting. In fact, 83 percent of the districts that moved out of the “swing” category — again, R+5 to D+5 — did so without being redrawn.

Only 14 districts moved from swing seats to solidly Republican — R+5 or greater — after redistricting, while 33 did so through the normal political evolution of the American voter.

And for a chaser some of your "more intelligent" liberals whining about gerrymandered Senate seats. These are the people you libs revere while scoffing at the "country hicks"

GRR Spartan wrote:Comrade Goosechev picking and choosing. Tell the Spanish speakers in Texas or black folks in any number of states what voice they have.

Right here in MI the GOP has taken advantage of drawning state and Congressional legislative districts making it nearly impossible for Democrats to come close to a getting a majority. Yet Democrats have won state wide elections.

I get it Goosechev. You, Trump and Putin all favor aurhoritarian government.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Pick a state and look how the Congressional districts are drawn.  Then pick  a district ct and look at the demographics of that particular district.  

This is just more news from Goosechev, the Russian Times stringer in Mio.  The same guy who posted the counties won map like it meant something.

https://www.census.gov/mycd/

Actually it's news from the Washington Post but why bother being accurate, no one is going to call you out on it.

and you're the same guy in the same party that keeps referring to the popular vote totals as if they mean something in a Presidential election.

steveschneider wrote:The big problem liberals ignore is their own apathy.

Apathy cost them in 2016, 2014 and 2010.

I see so many of my left and far left friends on FB eager to throw away their votes on Jill Stein or buy into some myth that their latest march or protest is going to make more effective change than voting.

I credit the right, they turn out to vote and they hold their politicians accountable. The left not so much.

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:The big problem liberals ignore is their own apathy.

Apathy cost them in 2016, 2014 and 2010.

I see so many of my left and far left friends on FB eager to throw away their votes on Jill Stein or buy into some myth that their latest march or protest is going to make more effective change than voting.

I credit the right, they turn out to vote and they hold their politicians accountable. The left not so much.

Yeah, they're old and have nothing else to do.

I watched the French election coverage and they were like 80% turn out is low, and I was like

We need to instill in young folks that there is an effect to voting or not voting.

steveschneider wrote:The big problem liberals ignore is their own apathy.

Apathy cost them in 2016, 2014 and 2010.

I see so many of my left and far left friends on FB eager to throw away their votes on Jill Stein or buy into some myth that their latest march or protest is going to make more effective change than voting.

I credit the right, they turn out to vote and they hold their politicians accountable. The left not so much.

DWags wrote:

steveschneider wrote:The big problem liberals ignore is their own apathy.

Apathy cost them in 2016, 2014 and 2010.

I see so many of my left and far left friends on FB eager to throw away their votes on Jill Stein or buy into some myth that their latest march or protest is going to make more effective change than voting.

I credit the right, they turn out to vote and they hold their politicians accountable. The left not so much.

It's also why there is systematic attempts by many states to make it difficult for certain segments in society to vote. We could go down that worm hole real quick in this thread. Especially about Official I.D. needed to vote.

But yeah, the left had to get mad and see what's happening here. It's nobodies fault but their own. The leaders of the democratic party should be investigated and possibly jailed for what they did to Bernie. They brought this result on largely by themselves. They need to look in thge mirror.

that last night schlepping out the Clointon's the Obama's Bruce and Bon Jovi on one stage in Philly should be put in picture frames and brought to every democratic party meeting with the saying "Those who do the same thing over and over and expect a different result are insane".

GRR Spartan wrote:Looks like the SCOTUS agreed that the NC GOP looked at demographics and drew the districts to put most of the minority voters into 2 districts.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Looks like the SCOTUS agreed that the NC GOP looked at demographics and drew the districts to put most of the minority voters into 2 districts.

Which is called for by the Voting Rights Act - Minority Majority Districts.

So they followed the law.....amazing.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Which is called for by the Voting Rights Act - Minority Majority Districts.

So they followed the law.....amazing.

Dang. So, the Supreme Court got it wrong?

by DAN MCLAUGHLIN May 22, 2017 3:05 PM @BASEBALLCRANK
The Supreme Court this morning, in Cooper v. Harris, struck down North Carolina’s Congressional map on the grounds that two districts (District 1 and District 12) were unconstitutionally based on race. The 5-3 opinion was written by Justice Kagan; Justice Thomas joined with the court’s liberals in the majority, while Justices Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy dissented in part. (Justice Gorsuch did not participate, as the case had already been argued, and one more vote would not change the outcome). Naturally, the media spin on this decision is knee-jerk characterizations of Republicans as racist, but the actual issues here are about the collision between two irreconcilable visions of district-drawing: (1) the prohibition on considering race in drawing district lines, and (2) the liberal view that the Voting Rights Act requires race to be considered in order to draw “majority-minority” districts. The decision illustrates the “heads I win, tails you lose” nature of the liberal attack on Republican – but only Republican – gerrymandering, as the Court had previously upheld similar actions taken by North Carolina Democrats. Now, let’s be blunt: in gerrymandering cases, nearly nobody cares about anything but advancing their party’s odds of winning elections. Justice Thomas has been virtually alone in taking the principled line, regardless of whose partisan ox is being gored or what the Court has done previously, that racial gerrymandering is virtually always unconstitutional. Specifically, Thomas’ longstanding view is that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause imposes “strict scrutiny” (a standard that is nearly impossible to satisfy) when districts are drawn with race primarily in mind, and that this includes districts drawn to create “majority-minority” districts (Thomas believes that the VRA does not require any such thing). The Court’s opinion doesn’t go that far, but it does advance the judicial grounds for throwing out racial gerrymanders, and it effectively overturns a 2001 decision, known as Cromartie II, that had upheld nearly the same District 12.

The plaintiffs are asking for an independent board to set up a new map and it’s a common demand around the country. But how truly “independent” can any such body be these days? I’ve brought this up before and I doubt anyone is going to listen this time, but we actually have software now which could redraw all of the maps into the most contiguous, compact shapes possible without regard for voting history, racial profiles or any other demographics. Do that once every ten years and let the chips fall where they may. At least it would be evenly and fairly divided.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Aren't you the one that was arguing against that?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Aren't you the one that was arguing against that?

Nope. I'm fine with blind drawing of Districts. I'm against "non partisan commissions" since I don't believe such a thing exists.

Feed a computer a list of priorities and let it work.

Make as geographically compact as possible. Try to maintain existing governmental units. Allow no information on voting records, race, sex, etc be entered.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Aren't you the one that was arguing against that?

Nope. I'm fine with blind drawing of Districts. I'm against "non partisan commissions" since I don't believe such a thing exists.

Feed a computer a list of priorities and let it work.

Make as geographically compact as possible. Try to maintain existing governmental units. Allow no information on voting records, race, sex, etc be entered.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Looks like the SCOTUS agreed that the NC GOP looked at demographics and drew the districts to put most of the minority voters into 2 districts.

Which is called for by the Voting Rights Act - Minority Majority Districts.

So they followed the law.....amazing.

GRR Spartan wrote:You want to break laws you deem foolish like smoking dope

msugolfguy wrote:I've always cared about Gerrymandering and actual a lot of my more Democratic friends have since we were able to vote around 2001 or so. I think it's always been a issue with a lot of people on both sides.

PS. Those lines have since been redrawn. I kind of get your point but it's pretty weak.

LooseGoose wrote:

msugolfguy wrote:I've always cared about Gerrymandering and actual a lot of my more Democratic friends have since we were able to vote around 2001 or so. I think it's always been a issue with a lot of people on both sides.

PS. Those lines have since been redrawn. I kind of get your point but it's pretty weak.

Glad you get the point. Whichever party is in charge at the State level has always gerrymandered to help themselves, it was one of several reasons the Dems controlled the House from 1954-1994. Of course back then they were more generally in favor of gerrymandering.