Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You both are approaching this from a disturbingly slanted viewpoint of what is best for my party and not what is best for the people. It is that very attitude of "all I care about is what is best for my party" that has turned redistricting into a corrupt mess.


How about independent commissions in all 50 states, not just the ones where Democrats want to undo GOP gerrys. And please lets not dance on the grave of an effort to create a commission in any state.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is there is no way to do this nationwide. So you have to go state by state and when it comes down to it, if you are an activist in say ILL who say's "I am not gonna do anything in my state because all these GOP SOBs in TX, FL, OH, NC etc etc", it sounds very much like putting the interests of one party over that of the people. It is certainly an argument for an unnacceptable status quo.

If I could change NC, I would change NC. I don't give a damn that its the GOP doing it or whether or not ILL cleans up there act first. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, it should be based on getting as many states as you can get without consideration of political concerns. My concern is restoring/maximizing the integrity of the process, not ensuring a balance between the two parties, which would come at the cost of that standard.

Such a federal law is probably unconstitutional.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is two is the only viable option. Are you just going to pass up an opportunity in ILL or OH because of what is happening in other states. If it gets on the ballot, I am confident enough force can be brought to get them passed from a combination of independent groups and the minority party in that state. I don't see why the results in CA (which are unknown until November for one thing) would dissuade the GOP in ILL from supporting a change in the process, especially if they have nothing left to lose after November.

Three is essentially number four, with a cover of partisan outrage at another state. The end result is the same and nothing will change. I don't see the Feds ever getting involved in the process of redistricting save from a VRA standpoint so number one isn't a realistic option. On the contrary, I think the involvement of the Federal gov't will actually decline depending on what the courts do. All there is to change the system is number two and if the opportunity comes along to change OH, to change ILL, it should be taken. It is one less to worry about.

I don't see why there is a cause for such pessimism. Look at how well things have gone in so many states, that CA and NY have made great strides. Florida now has standards at least and may have a commission by the next round. The public is there I think and we will see modifications in these states if necessary, but by 2020, the number of gerrymanders will be counted on one hand. There isn't anything wrong with the current system, except that it has been corrupted for partisan gain. You can't solve that by approaching the solution on a partisan basis, that will simply extend the problem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Atleast one of those gray states on your map already has a commission. Atleast two more have very strict county preservation requirements that have limited gerrymandering attempts, severely.


Yes, they court plans can be partisan, but both NY and CO were fairly decent in my estimation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You both are approaching this from a disturbingly slanted viewpoint of what is best for my party and not what is best for the people. It is that very attitude of "all I care about is what is best for my party" that has turned redistricting into a corrupt mess.

I sincerely hope you're not including "automatic voter registration" in your "bad because it supports the Democrats" thing.

I find it hilarious that you can conveniently pretend that you know me far less then you actually do in order to get in a ridiculous jab such as that.

In case you didn't notice, greenforest wasn't the only one that I criticized in this thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find it hilarious that you can conveniently pretend that you know me far less then you actually do in order to get in a ridiculous jab such as that.

In case you didn't notice, greenforest wasn't the only one that I criticized in this thread.

I believe his point was that you considered adopting automatic voter registration, something that only guarantees more eligible voters will participate in elections, a Democratic equivalent to Republicans being able to keep a gerrymander that nets them at least 2-4 seats they would otherwise not have. It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.

The problem is he should know better after three years then to assume that "Well since I am a Republican, this this and this". He also should know by now that I would never let him get away with it.

Like a lot of things Marokai Blue tends to say, this is a case where he said something very pretentious based off my avatar color and possibly got a severely misinterpretted version of what I said in this thread as a result. What makes it all the worse is that he should know better, yet he doesn't or atleast pretends not to for some reason. He also likes to pretend people said something other than what they actually did so he can create a fake disagreement and appear to the on the right side of that argument for some undefined purpose. Both of them seem to possibly be at play here.

I don't recall ever saying in this thread that anything was bad because it benefitted Democrats. Perhaps he was confusing me with TJ. I said that the best thing for the intregrity of the system sometimes requires putting the country first and the party second. Which is the exact opposite of the implication that Marokai was claiming I had made.

As for expanding the number of voters, I have always voted early (save for this last runoff where I missed it and had to vote on the election day itself) and thus it would be ridiculous for me to want to curtail that. This is yet more partisan based presumption on MB's part. As for automatic registration, it is something I would take a look at but I wouldn't say yes or no based on who would benefit politically from that. I find the implication otherwise from someone who has known me for so long, to be an insult.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just to be clear when I said "It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.", I wasn't referring to Marokai's comment making that implication, but to your first post (the third post in the thread) directed at me and krazen somehow equally advocating for changes that benefit our party at the expense of the public or the integrity of the system.

The changes I called for (automatic voter registration and redistricting commissions in 3 states) would only increase the legitimacy of the system from where it is now whereas Krazen is hoping the OH commission fails and Republicans keep the existing 12R-4D gerrymander.

I stated that opposition to commissions in one state based on what is happening to one's party in other states, was sacrificing the integrity of the system for the benefit of one's party.  I never said anything about any other proposals you had made. My problem was with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which was followed by a list that didn't include Illinois. It came off as a partisan approach to a problem caused by such partisanship, with the aim of benefiting a party primarily and not benefiting the system. Therefore, you and Krazen appeared to be different sides of the same disturbing coin, which is what motivated my first post in this thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If that perspective were taken by all Democrats in California on the grounds that, " well we have to make up for Texas", they would probably not have a commission now. The integrity of the system is improved with each successfull reform, so I disagree with you on that and we have made great strides in this past decades thanks to Democrats and liberals getting so pissed off about Texas. There is a movement out there now and it has successfully changed several states in just the past few years. Most people hate gerrymandering and they won't appreciate such a nuance as "Its okay because we are countering Texas", because it hardly changes the fact they aren't being represented properly not only in Congress, but in their state legislature which has nothing to do with what is going on in any other state. That is why most reforms, if functional, have a good chance at success once on the ballot.

Republicans didn't invent gerrymandering. In fact, most of the "safe from reform" states were shining examples of extreme Democratic gerrymanders for decades before Republicans got their groper nasties on them in 2002 in Texas, 2004 in Georgia, and 2010 in North Carolina. No state is safe from reform. Even in NC we have constitutional amendments. They require legislative approval and while the GOP probably wouldn't go along with such, there is a minority party in this state that should have a vested interest in pushing that. They don't though and in fact, most Democrats in places of power and influence don't want it here and the same probably goes for Texas and Georgia. They see the demographic numbers and they know damn well they will soon be able to party it up like the good old days and exact revenge. There is a culture of gerrymandering in these states that is bipartisan. It just further proves my point of the folly in taking such a partisan view of the not just problem, but the effort to reform it nation wide. Consideration of partisan interest is what corrupted this system to begin with. If you can fix a state's problem, do so regardless of what people do in Texas.

In terms of redistricting and gerrymander, "Avoiding unilateral disarming" is a nice, catchy phrase which I use myself sometimes to describe the indefensible hypocrisy of corrupt insider hacks in these state legislatures and their motivation for doing nothing. It isn't exactly an effective defense for one's position, because it just that, a justification for doing nothing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.

Even the best gamed independent commissions (say Arizona) will come up with results similar to the better kind of legislative-map-by-one-party-with-serious-constraints (the new Florida map, say) - and clearly better than the worse examples of that (say Michigan).

The Michigan map has a mere 2 out of 14 districts won by Senator John McCain, compared to 12 out of 14 districts won by President Barack Obama.

If anything, the Michigan map well adheres to the notion that competitive seats should be drawn. Greenforest32 is complaining for no reason at all, other than the simple fact that the voters do not prefer his party.

That sounds like the arguments NC Republicans made about their map. They maintained that because Roy Cooper carried all the districts in 2008, their redistricting plan was, holistically, "fair" and "competitive."

What I don't get is the relative passivity of the Democratic legislators, officials and strategists in North Carolina. They complain about the map as it was drawn, but in most of the interviews I have seen, they don't really want to change this system. Have you heard anything different in your area of the state?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is why most reforms, if functional, have a good chance at success once on the ballot.

Most the recent reform has come from initiatives. It's nice to be optimistic of non-initiative states reforming but it won't be anytime this decade which leaves us with the status quo of a Republican house for 10 years, something Democrats didn't have after 2000 even with both parties' gerrymanders back then. It is something a lot of people are going to have issue with.

Anyway, it wouldn't be such a problem if Republicans in Congress were actually interested in governing somewhat responsibly and solving national problems. The way things are going, the best case scenario looks like a decade of the 2011-2012 congressional session. It's going to be such a waste.

A gerrymander can't stop a wave election. And the more states without the gerrymanders, the less the house would be alienated from the cumulative House PV.

Actually, it would be a problem in my opinion, because the House is suppose to represent the people as best as possible.

What if the Republicans tie or win the cumulative House PV this November? The gerrymanders will be irrelevant as the cause of the GOP majority.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is no way that NC, GA, TX, and MD could stop a 1994, 2006, 2010 style wave election, no matter how gerrymandered they are. All the others that need to be reformed, can be without the aid of the legislature.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is no way that NC... could stop a... 2010 style wave election, no matter how gerrymandered they are.

I dunno, looked like they did a good job of it to me.

How is Speaker Pelosi doing these days?

Really!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How is Speaker Pelosi doing these days?

Really!

In North Carolina she did very well, retaining a 7-5 advantage that probably would have been 8-4 if one of her Congressman didn't try to choke that gadfly.

You missed the point of what I was saying, which was that a single, or even a few, state delegations can't prevent a nationwide wave from shifting control of the chamber.