Gerrymandering is not what's wrong with American politics
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:28:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Gerrymandering is not what's wrong with American politics
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Gerrymandering is not what's wrong with American politics  (Read 3575 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 17, 2015, 07:58:43 AM »

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2015, 03:41:51 PM »

No matter how many articles you post saying gerrymandering isn't the biggest problem in American politics, it doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering IS a problem.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2015, 04:33:52 PM »

The article makes a decent case that gerrymandering is not the primary cause of Congress's increasing polarization, but that's obvious enough just from the fact that the Senate's become more polarized too. The real problem with gerrymandering is that it undermines our democratic process by allowing the composition of the legislature to become less representative of the popular will (and does so entirely for the sake of partisan interests).
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2015, 09:49:58 PM »

Gerrymandering may not reduce partisanship but it still distorts the will of the people by rigging elections in favor of the party who drew the lines.  Ohio is one of the most evenly split states in the country when it comes to party line voting and yet only 25% of the Congress people are Democrats and that's not just because the last two midterms have been better years for Republicans.  The Ohio legislature is even more of a joke when it comes to gerrymandered lines.  You can't tell me that gerrymandering is not a major problem when a state with Ohio's political leanings looks so lopsided when it comes to our districted legislators.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2015, 11:05:00 PM »
« Edited: May 17, 2015, 11:09:11 PM by ag »

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Smiley Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2015, 11:06:11 PM »

The article makes a decent case that gerrymandering is not the primary cause of Congress's increasing polarization, but that's obvious enough just from the fact that the Senate's become more polarized too.

Not true. See my comment below: gerrymandering of the House, in fact, may be the reason for the greater polarization in the Senate.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2015, 10:20:20 AM »

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Smiley Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and is of course true to some extent. It is less true however to the extent that the attitudes of the party faithful are not shaped by their political leaders, but by other factors, with the politicians just following rather than leading. To that extent, there would be more polarization irrespective of whether or not there is gerrymandering, and/or adherents of each party whose respective geographic locations tend to be discrete.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2015, 01:02:27 PM »

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Smiley Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and is of course true to some extent. It is less true however to the extent that the attitudes of the party faithful are not shaped by their political leaders, but by other factors, with the politicians just following rather than leading. To that extent, there would be more polarization irrespective of whether or not there is gerrymandering, and/or adherents of each party whose respective geographic locations tend to be discrete.

But the nature of party faithful would have bee different. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were once also part and parcel of their parties. The increasingly perfect sorting we increasingly observe is, to a large extent, consequence of gerrymandering.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2015, 01:20:32 PM »

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Smiley Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and is of course true to some extent. It is less true however to the extent that the attitudes of the party faithful are not shaped by their political leaders, but by other factors, with the politicians just following rather than leading. To that extent, there would be more polarization irrespective of whether or not there is gerrymandering, and/or adherents of each party whose respective geographic locations tend to be discrete.

But the nature of party faithful would have bee different. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were once also part and parcel of their parties. The increasingly perfect sorting we increasingly observe is, to a large extent, consequence of gerrymandering.

I don't think so. I think it has more to do with 1) white Southerners switching parties, as blacks began to exercise their franchise more, and 2) the concomitant rise of social issues and fall of labor/management issues and private sector labor unions (item 2 thereby causing most of that portion of the cosmopolitan white gentry out of the Pub party that had been in it).
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2015, 03:04:40 PM »

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Smiley Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and is of course true to some extent. It is less true however to the extent that the attitudes of the party faithful are not shaped by their political leaders, but by other factors, with the politicians just following rather than leading. To that extent, there would be more polarization irrespective of whether or not there is gerrymandering, and/or adherents of each party whose respective geographic locations tend to be discrete.

But the nature of party faithful would have bee different. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were once also part and parcel of their parties. The increasingly perfect sorting we increasingly observe is, to a large extent, consequence of gerrymandering.

I don't think so. I think it has more to do with 1) white Southerners switching parties, as blacks began to exercise their franchise more, and 2) the concomitant rise of social issues and fall of labor/management issues and private sector labor unions (item 2 thereby causing most of that portion of the cosmopolitan white gentry out of the Pub party that had been in it).

In any case, in light of my point, the title of the thread is a bit misleading: polarization among the Congressmen from marginal seats cannot be used as evidence that it is not about gerrymandering.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2015, 03:10:26 PM »

Yes, I agree with that.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2015, 09:04:44 PM »

I'm more inclined to believe that the rising polarization has a lot more to do with a decline in the mob-style smoke-filled-room corruption that is mostly limited to NY and IL anymore than it has to do with gerrymandering, but I'm sure the way the lines are drawn is another brick in the wall at least.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2015, 10:09:38 PM »

I see Torie is back to trolling the forums with hilarious articles again, but I don't think it's ever occurred on this board?
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2015, 05:50:29 AM »

I think much of the issue of polarisation in US politics is driven by the primary system. Winning primaries requires appealing to the base where the threat is more likely to come from the fringe than the centre/moderates. AG's point about party membership is particularly relevant.

A way to correct this (which won't actually happen), might be to have some sort of proportional representation model to select 3 or 4 candidates per party (increasing the likelihood of at least one moderate) for the primary, followed by IRV in the General.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2015, 07:36:22 AM »

Gerrymandering is used to create two situations in a legislative body: skew and polarization.

Skew refers to the effect of tilting the body consistently towards one party beyond any advantage that should exist when looking at the total vote. The OH map is a clear example given the balance in statewide vote, yet a 12-4 advantage in PVI.

Polarization refers to an excess of districts that have a high likelihood of electing members from only one party. Data from congressional districts in the last decade suggests that about a third of the seats should be in play with PVIs of +5 or less, able to respond to swings in the electorate. About 10% should be highly competitive and regularly flip back and forth, but recent elections show too few of these swing seats exist. OH shows this feature, too, with no districts with a PVI less than +3, and only two districts less than +5.

Any legislative body is going to have a share of safe seats, and that doesn't necessarily create a partisan atmosphere. However, a map that has both skew and polarization can result in a legislature that has less need to be responsive to the electorate as a whole. That can manifest itself in a majority party more concerned with its base than with the middle, and the remaining safe districts push the minority party towards its base, too.

I would certainly not blame gerrymandering for the wider polarization in US politics. The fragmented media that has returned to a 19th century model of niche viewpoints is the major contributor, IMO. However, fragmented media and gerrymandered legislative bodies can positively reinforce each other to form a partisan atmosphere.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2015, 06:51:29 PM »

No matter how many articles you post saying gerrymandering isn't the biggest problem in American politics, it doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering IS a problem.

Striking a match also contributes to global warming.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2015, 11:20:36 PM »

No matter how many articles you post saying gerrymandering isn't the biggest problem in American politics, it doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering IS a problem.

Striking a match also contributes to global warming.
What a perverted analogy.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2015, 10:10:03 AM »


If the electorate has a propensity to self-destruct and vote from a position of sheer ignorance, does it really matter if one party or another is stealing a few seats?
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2015, 04:28:50 PM »


If the electorate has a propensity to self-destruct and vote from a position of sheer ignorance, does it really matter if one party or another is stealing a few seats?
Yeah, it figures that your argument against voter disenfranchisement is, "It's only a few seats!"
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2015, 10:27:38 AM »
« Edited: June 05, 2015, 09:00:56 PM by Torie »

Here is an interesting thread on DailyKos, where the Midwest is redrawn to undo all the gerrymandering. The maps the guy's drawn in some instances tend to be modest Dem gerrymanders in my opinion, at least vis a vis the metrics we use here (e.g. Pub Oakland and Livingston in MI are put into a Pub vote sink, the Cleveland area lines get rid of any marginal CD in the NE corner of the state, and so forth, but despite all of that, the Dems would be projected to gain but 7 seats net.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2015, 11:58:31 AM »

The Midwest is particularly geographically biased against Democrats though. Read the other posts in his series, starting here.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2015, 12:47:11 PM »

The Midwest is particularly geographically biased against Democrats though. Read the other posts in his series, starting here.

Which is exactly why Republicans have to go to such extreme lengths to create winning opportunities through the maps. Geography simply doesn't help them in some places.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2015, 05:05:05 PM »
« Edited: June 05, 2015, 05:08:34 PM by muon2 »

I've read the series and I tend to agree with Torie. One obvious example of the author's bias is IA. The actual map is a well-regarded four-corners plan. It keeps the Des Moines UCC together, not that they were trying. Yet, the author pushes for a plan that gives Dems a better shot by lumping Des Moines with Ames.

Nonetheless, Lief correctly notes the quote about the Midwest Pub bias. The Dems are way overconcentrated in the urban centers throughout the region, and the largest cities force more concentration through the VRA. I'm not sure anyone but a Dem partisan could propose the Cleveland VRA district in the author's map.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2015, 05:00:53 PM »

I don't agree that the Midwest is necessarily biased against Democrats. I think it's just that Republican gerrymanders are able to severely exacerbate any slight partisan leaning in terms of geography.

With a fair map in place, I think Ohio would actually favour the Democrats. Democrats would surely hold a Cleveland-based district, a Columbus-based district, an Akron-based district, and a Toledo-based district. More than likely, they'd hold a Youngstown-based district and a lake-shore district between Cleveland and Toledo. The far Northeastern district and the Cincinnati district would be swing districts, as would perhaps the Appalachian district that would hug the border from south of Youngstown down to Athens. There would also be a Dayton-based district that would probably be no more than R+1. That would basically leave six safe Republican districts. I think Democrats would also have at least six to eight districts in their hands in a neutral year. A fair map in 2012 would have at least sent Betty Sutton back to Congress from the Akron-based district (and Tim Ryan from any Youngstown-based district).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2015, 08:29:53 PM »

I don't agree that the Midwest is necessarily biased against Democrats. I think it's just that Republican gerrymanders are able to severely exacerbate any slight partisan leaning in terms of geography.

With a fair map in place, I think Ohio would actually favour the Democrats. Democrats would surely hold a Cleveland-based district, a Columbus-based district, an Akron-based district, and a Toledo-based district. More than likely, they'd hold a Youngstown-based district and a lake-shore district between Cleveland and Toledo. The far Northeastern district and the Cincinnati district would be swing districts, as would perhaps the Appalachian district that would hug the border from south of Youngstown down to Athens. There would also be a Dayton-based district that would probably be no more than R+1. That would basically leave six safe Republican districts. I think Democrats would also have at least six to eight districts in their hands in a neutral year. A fair map in 2012 would have at least sent Betty Sutton back to Congress from the Akron-based district (and Tim Ryan from any Youngstown-based district).
Why should there be a district between Toledo and Cleveland?   And why should you divide the eastern and southeastern suburbs of Cleveland between an Akron-based district and Youngstown-based district?  And why should Cleveland be divided?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.