LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Yeh, but I've read better stuff. It read like a masters thesis.

Another one, not necessarily better. (and I think the Emory guys are Ph.D. candidates, so you could be right.

One interesting conclusion is that the degree of competitiveness in a district does not closely correleate with ideological extremism. They suggest that the greater influence of teh national parties is partly to blame--that is, candidates are more closely aligned with the national views than the local views, leading to relative extremism.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
No. That is ridiculous. The count is 26-26 for five elections. There is a Gerrymander and the count in the next election changes to 31-21. Then in the following election there is no change. If the state had been moving left the change would have been gradual - not all at once.

And we don't even have to look at the results. We don't have to deduce the cause by looking at the results. The Democrats took the Republican voters in these districts and put them in districts that were already safe Republican. Then they took Democratic seats from those already safe Republican seats and put them in the competitive seats. Once a Republican seat is 50% Republican it is a safe seat. No way a democrat can win. So every Republican added to that seat changes nothing but every Democrat taken out and put in a competitive seat makes it lean more Democrat. So twenty Republican seats that were already safe Republican districts had their percentages of Republicans increased from fifty or sixty to seventy or eighty percent. All the Dems taken away turned the swing seats from thirty percent Democrat to sixty percent democrat changin them to the Dem column.

Which points out another stupid thing about that study. If you are looking at pure turnover, there is no time when you get more incumbants losing or when you get more turnover then right after a Gerrymander.

In Texas, it is my understanding the count was also equal and then after the Gerrymander the Republicans got a five seat advantage.

There is a direct relationship and it is painfully obvious.

Let me tell you about the old District 17 in Texas, which covered Midland/Odessa and Lubbock. In 2002, Cornyn and Perry got 67% and 72% of the votes in the statewide election in that district. Not exactly a close district. But Charlie Stenholm, a Democrat, kept on winning the House seat every year. He was a ranking member on the Agriculture Committee in the House, and he was really good about keeping the people in his district happy. It was decidedly NOT a Democratic district, though a Democrat kept on winning.

Ultimately, in order to get rid of Charlie Stenholm (and because Tom Craddick wanted Midland to be the epicenter of its own district), the district was torn up in the great clusterfuck of 2003 and Charlie Stenholm lost his seat, Texas lost a huge amount of seniority in a committee that is rather important to the state, and the (Washington) Republicans smugly think somehow this is a good thing.

Interestingly, when the Killer Ds returned from Albequerque in surrender in August 2003*, you would have thought that the Republicans would have immediately passed the new maps and moved on. But, there were two Republican maps. Stupid Texas House members thought that they could fight those on high. Rove/DeLay wanted to destroy District 17 without really thinking it through that maybe, just maybe, it's not a Democratic District but instead a Charlie Stenholm District. The people who've actually been to Midland/Odessa and Lubbock thought that maybe not enough thought had been put into that part of the map.

Suddenly everyone realized that if a map wasn't passed by October 14, then it wouldn't be ready in time for the 2004 primary, and the whole point of the brouhaha would have been moot. So Tom DeLay flew to Austin in October 2003 to twist some arms and the maps were passed more or less exactly how he envisioned them.

ETA article by Charlie Stenholm reflecting on this 26 years in the House.

And a Texas Blogger's posts on redistricting

*Mini timeline:
Early may 2003, Republicans declare redistricting. Do not invite Democrats to the map drawing sessions, and hold hearings in the middle of the night. Democrats left entirely out of the process.

Late May 2003: In protest, 40 House Democrats flee to Ardmore, Oklahoma in order to avoid a quorum. Tom DeLay (last checked, simply a US Representative for Sugar Land, and not a member of the Texas Legislature) sends the Department of Homeland Security after them.

June 6, 2003: Biannual four and a half month regular session of the Texas Legislature ends.

July 2003: Governor declares special session for redistricting. No one can agree on anything. Special session ends.

August 2003: Governor declares a second special session for redistricting. The Democrats of the more deliberate body high tail it to Alburquerque (in my opinion a better choice than Oklahoma). John Whitmire ultimately comes back and forces a vote.

September 2003: Third special session convienes to talk about redistricting. Two maps up for debate. A house version and a version drawn by Karl Rove and Tom DeLay.

October 2003: Relaizing that they've been wasting time, Republicans get over arguing with one another over the maps and pass one.

December 2003: Under what are now suspicious circumstances, the Justice Department approves of the maps.

January 2004: Three Judge panel approves of the maps.

April 2004: Primaries under new maps.

October 2004: Supreme Court tells the three judge panel to look at the maps again in light of Vieth v. Jubelirer.

June 2005: Three judge panel looks at maps again and approves.

December 2005: Justice Department report surfaces that indicates that the Civil Rights Division at DoJ didn't like the maps at all.

December 2005: Supreme Court agrees to hear oral arguments on all of the above.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Rove/DeLay wanted to destroy District 17 without really thinking it through that maybe, just maybe, it's not a Democratic District but instead a Charlie Stenholm District.

There's something in there for everyone, but this boils down my point: any redistricting will hurt an incumbent. An incumbent in a disfavored party can still win; a new candidate in teh wrong party can't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There's something in there for everyone, but this boils down my point: any redistricting will hurt an incumbent. An incumbent in a disfavored party can still win; a new candidate in teh wrong party can't.

Perhaps if you rephrased this to some incumbants, and limited it to the election after redistricting, you'd get more agreement. Clearly, the intention of redistricting is two-fold: first, to get out the disfavored reps, but also to allow favored reps to consolidate their positions. In these consolidated districts, over time, there will be a tendency to shift away from the middle, because there is less middle to contend with.

Bay Area Party Tour

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Even thought she wont be in SF only the Silicon Valley, the pig may try and use it against us. But the money raised will outweigh the negatives. I think other people will do stuff other places, but as for me, I ain't much use outside the Golden State.

Someone will have to pick up that ball.

No matter what happens it will be lot of fun. Delay (or at least I assume it is him) has already sent PIs looking into my background. Isn't the first time and won't be the last time.

Hmmm. The Republicans in Ft. Bend County are disavowing her.

Via Safety for Dummies

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

But there's simply no real way to know.

No, a true political scientist would know. These idiots (I read the report last night) don't know some basic political realities. You always know the party registration so you know which way the wind is blowing.

In California if the Republican Registration is above forty five percent in a district it becomes a safe Republican seat. If it drops below thirty five it becomes a safe Democrat seat. Every political consulatant knows that. There are many factors involved, turnout among Repubs is higher, Repubs cross party lines less, but that is the basid rule. There are some variables you have to factor in whether it is a rural or city district but no matter how the variables turn out the rule is pretty consistent.

Knowing these numbers, with a good gerrymandering software you can change the amount of seats your party gets by playing with the numbers.

It is very scientific and it work. There is no question. The party in power can change the number of seats they control by redrawing the lines. That is an irrefutable fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Another one, not necessarily better. (and I think the Emory guys are Ph.D. candidates, so you could be right.

Here's the thing about masters theses: they generally need to show that you have some facility with and understand the tools of the trade, but little more. At least with a PhD thesis, someone is going to ask whether you are making an original contribution to the discipline.

But I'd like to return to my earlier question: sould the balancing act between the branches and between the federal and state governments be redrawn to move redistricting to another branch. For me, the argument for doing it now is that we have the technology available to do restricting in a way that doesn't involve crayons. Because I think a judge with crayons will show biases, even if those are not always quite as open as a hack with crayons.

So I like the idea of "shortest boundries", though I might broaden te approach, and say, "shortest boundries, provided that precincts must be unified, wards and towns should be unified (and maybe have a prearranged penalty for splitting a ward or town) and cities are best off unified if possible (maybe a bonus for keeping a city whole).

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Here's the thing about masters theses: they generally need to show that you have some facility with and understand the tools of the trade, but little more. At least with a PhD thesis, someone is going to ask whether you are making an original contribution to the discipline.

But I'd like to return to my earlier question: sould the balancing act between the branches and between the federal and state governments be redrawn to move redistricting to another branch. For me, the argument for doing it now is that we have the technology available to do restricting in a way that doesn't involve crayons. Because I think a judge with crayons will show biases, even if those are not always quite as open as a hack with crayons.

So I like the idea of "shortest boundries", though I might broaden te approach, and say, "shortest boundries, provided that precincts must be unified, wards and towns should be unified (and maybe have a prearranged penalty for splitting a ward or town) and cities are best off unified if possible (maybe a bonus for keeping a city whole).

On para. 1, sure. I haven't looked at the data, I haven't evaluated the statistical methods, and I don't particularly care to. Presumably someone will, and either say they sucked or that there's something there. And they'll make some additional contribution. I'm somewhat surprised that a paper that was presented nearly a year ago, and is topical and relevant, has not drawn rapid, basic criticism, which suggested to me they have something to add.

On para. 2, I don't think that's really the question. The panel of retired judges is a legislative mechanism designed to depoliticize the process. It's like the base-closing commission. But it's still in the legislative branch (until a challenge arises). Having judges, especially elected judges, make the decision is no great shakes.

On para. 3, remember that even precincts could be gerrymandered. they aren't because it doesn't matter now, but they could. But I like your modification: shortest borders using only existing political boundaries, such as town/city and county borders, or, if necessary, other boundaries, which will be counted double or triple or something. FWIW, I tried to google the mathematical solution possiblibilty. Apparently it's regarded currently as an unsolvable problem, and that approximations are the best we can do. Pretty sure computer power will change that in time, but not now.

Quote:

Just to state the obvious, but I don't think the redrawing should be in the hands of the legislature or the chief executive. State Supreme Court, random people chosen out of the phone book, I don't care. Anybody but the legislature. I should point out that the retired judge option is used in many states, and has been used in California when there is a deadlock. The retired judges lines have always been pretty good and fair.

I think the guidelines should be following county city and precint lines as much as possible and then make them as compact as possible. But either way you will always have some subjective calls so it has to be decided by someone.

In the 1980 Gerrymander you had a district that ran all the way from Yosemite Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. For a while it the district just followed a freeway (and was no wider that the freeway). The majority leader of the California State Senate, John Burton, called it his contribution to modern art.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Just to state the obvious, but I don't think the redrawing should be in the hands of the legislature or the chief executive. State Supreme Court, random people chosen out of the phone book, I don't care. Anybody but the legislature.

I think the guidelines should be following county city and precint lines as much as possible and then make them as compact as possible. But either way you will always have some subjective calls so it has to be decided by someone.

In the 1980 Gerrymander you had a district that ran all the way from Yosemite Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. For a while it the district just followed a freeway (and was no wider that the freeway). The majority leader of the California State Senate, John Burton, called it his contribution to modern art.

I believe there is also a way to calculate the "compactness" of a given shape, which basically boils down to how far points along the border and on lines between those points are from all other points. If you base it just on the length of the border, the model may avoid like the plague a meandering river that forms a natural boundry between two towns.

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I believe there is also a way to calculate the "compactness" of a given shape,

area/perimeter^2.

Of course, by that measure, Maine is really not that compact.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
area/perimeter^2.

Of course, by that measure, Maine is really not that compact.

No, it's different than that. I think it starts by looking at the points that are farthest apart in the area and then works from there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
No, it's different than that. I think it starts by looking at the points that are farthest apart in the area and then works from there.

takes a formula to beat a formula. What's yours?

FWIW, under my formula, a circle is the most compact (planar) shape.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...

We need a true liberal on this board (anti free trade, Pro-Cindy Sheehand and Howard Dean) and we also need a true blue conservative (pro-life, pro-gun, pro-theocracy). Anyone know any? Otherwise things might get a little dull around here.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
We need a true liberal on this board (anti free trade, Pro-Cindy Sheehand and Howard Dean) and we also need a true blue conservative (pro-life, pro-gun, pro-theocracy). Anyone know any? Otherwise things might get a little dull around here.

penske and slave hit the latter.