Supreme Court could eliminate Gerrymandering

[Devils30]

If Clinton wins, I think the House in 2020 could be much more in play if she is somewhat popular. I expect the court to declare the GOP maps in NC WI MI PA VA FL invalid and articulate a standard for districts.

[RI]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

[Virginiá]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

Sam Wang has put together a three point test that doesn't rely on shape, but rather on comparing the expected delegation given the vote to a Monte Carlo delegation selected from across all of the districts in the country. It's a little complicated, but pretty interesting to dive into.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

Sam Wang has put together a three point test that doesn't rely on shape, but rather on comparing the expected delegation given the vote to a Monte Carlo delegation selected from across all of the districts in the country. It's a little complicated, but pretty interesting to dive into.

Doesn't this mean that, if districts are gerrymandered all across the country for the same party, then a State that's gerrymandered to the same extent as the country as a whole would pass such a test?

[Slander and/or Libel]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

Sam Wang has put together a three point test that doesn't rely on shape, but rather on comparing the expected delegation given the vote to a Monte Carlo delegation selected from across all of the districts in the country. It's a little complicated, but pretty interesting to dive into.

Doesn't this mean that, if districts are gerrymandered all across the country for the same party, then a State that's gerrymandered to the same extent as the country as a whole would pass such a test?

Could be, though I think in practice that's exceedingly unlikely. I think it's worth doing the analysis based on some measure of what is, rather than a mutable measure of what should be.

[Virginiá]

Could be, though I think in practice that's exceedingly unlikely. I think it's worth doing the analysis based on some measure of what is, rather than a mutable measure of what should be.

Honestly, I'm a pretty big fan of the Wisconsin test making its way through the courts. It measures 'wasted' votes, which will be high in gerrymandered districts. In order to rig those maps, they have to either pack Democrats into districts or crack them up and spread them out among many districts to dilute their voting power. The end result is the target party ends up 'wasting' far more votes than the party doing the gerrymandering. Obviously that is a simplified answer, though.

Here is a comprehensive overview:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/understanding-wisconsin-s-legislative-redistricting-trial-the-efficiency-gap-partisan/article_dd107d13-684f-5306-a680-43923fec7027.html

[Bojack Horseman]

Perhaps they could issue a blanket ruling that it is unconstitutional per the 14th Amendment's Priviliges and Immunities clause and the equal protection clause to draw the districts to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party.

[muon2]

I'll stick to my measures of skew and polarization. Anyone can calculate them from the Cook PVI's and they reflect both axes of gerrymandering. Most other measures neglect the impact of bipartisan gerrymanders (see CA in the 2000's) that is unresponsive to fluctuations in the electorate's mood.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll stick to my measures of skew and polarization. Anyone can calculate them from the Cook PVI's and they reflect both axes of gerrymandering. Most other measures neglect the impact of bipartisan gerrymanders (see CA in the 2000's) that is unresponsive to fluctuations in the electorate's mood.

I don't think drawing competitive districts should be a goal in and of itself, though. If the geography of a State is such that the most natural map is one with few competitive districts, we shouldn't force competition by putting solid-D areas together with solid-R areas in the same district.

[muon2]

I'll stick to my measures of skew and polarization. Anyone can calculate them from the Cook PVI's and they reflect both axes of gerrymandering. Most other measures neglect the impact of bipartisan gerrymanders (see CA in the 2000's) that is unresponsive to fluctuations in the electorate's mood.

I don't think drawing competitive districts should be a goal in and of itself, though. If the geography of a State is such that the most natural map is one with few competitive districts, we shouldn't force competition by putting solid-D areas together with solid-R areas in the same district.

I'm more concerned about plans that intentionally deny competitive districts. It's actually common as part of political gerrymanders. Looking for highly polarized districts makes them easier to detect.

For example OH is an R+1 state. Not only is it skewed for the Pubs (12R, 4D), it's also highly polarized with only two of 16 seats having a PVI of 5 or less (OH-10 R+3, OH-14 R+4). That combination is a clear signal of gerrymandering. The delegation doesn't have to be skewed to be gerrymandered. Before CA put in its commission, Dems and Pubs happily packed their respective districts to make them all safe. Measuring the skew alone would not detect the gerrymander, yet when there were major swings nationally, there was little change in the CA delegation.

What I prefer is a plan that can respond in a natural way to changes in voting in a given year. A small swing should produce small changes in the delegation. A large swing should produce large changes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If what you truly want is a voting system that responds in a natural way to changes in voting in a given year, the obvious solution is proportional representation. Single-member district systems will always have a skewed reaction to aggregate vote swings (in fact, it usually accentuates them, although the opposite is true in cases of bipartisan gerrymanders).

I think the only valid criterion for drawing districts should be creating communities as cohesive as possible, whether this results in polarization or not.

[muon2]

If what you truly want is a voting system that responds in a natural way to changes in voting in a given year, the obvious solution is proportional representation. Single-member district systems will always have a skewed reaction to aggregate vote swings (in fact, it usually accentuates them, although the opposite is true in cases of bipartisan gerrymanders).

I think the only valid criterion for drawing districts should be creating communities as cohesive as possible, whether this results in polarization or not.

I wouldn't draw the maps just to create swingy districts. That becomes yet another type of gerrymander, and could make the delegation overly responsive. Polarization and skew are tests best applied after a map is drawn to test if it is outside the expected norm for the state.

The problem I've seen is that there are so many ways to define a cohesive community, and any two bodies drawing maps are likely to come to different conclusions about communities. That's why I'd rather use political boundaries such as counties, cities, schools, and the road connections between them as neutral definitions of communities during map drawing. After a map is produced then one can test it for the degree of polarization. If there is a map that is substantially more polarized than others produced by the same rubric, I would generally not prefer that map.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If what you truly want is a voting system that responds in a natural way to changes in voting in a given year, the obvious solution is proportional representation. Single-member district systems will always have a skewed reaction to aggregate vote swings (in fact, it usually accentuates them, although the opposite is true in cases of bipartisan gerrymanders).

I think the only valid criterion for drawing districts should be creating communities as cohesive as possible, whether this results in polarization or not.

I wouldn't draw the maps just to create swingy districts. That becomes yet another type of gerrymander, and could make the delegation overly responsive. Polarization and skew are tests best applied after a map is drawn to test if it is outside the expected norm for the state.

The problem I've seen is that there are so many ways to define a cohesive community, and any two bodies drawing maps are likely to come to different conclusions about communities. That's why I'd rather use political boundaries such as counties, cities, schools, and the road connections between them as neutral definitions of communities during map drawing. After a map is produced then one can test it for the degree of polarization. If there is a map that is substantially more polarized than others produced by the same rubric, I would generally not prefer that map.

That's fair. In most cases, I think such a test would work generally well in practice, but I'd be wary of codifying it for fear that lawmakers will end up artificially creating more swingy districts than a State should have (which, in some way, is what Democrats have done for partisan reasons in Illinois, if I'm not mistaken).

[Bojack Horseman]

I don't think it has to be done to create swing districts, I think it should be done nationwide the way Iowa does it, where a computer program draws the lines based on nothing more than population. Now obviously some districts are going to be safe under that system. If you drew a district entirely based on the city limits of San Francisco, which party is that seat going to?

Iowa is a good example of what would happen in most states. You'd have one completely safe district for each party, one that's somewhat elastic that will only change parties in a 2014 scenario where nobody votes, and one that's completely neutral and a fair-fight district.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think it should be done nationwide the way Iowa does it, where a computer program draws the lines based on nothing more than population.

That's bound to create districts that look nice and compact but are really monstrosities that lump bits of urban centers together with bits of suburb and bits of countryside. If you want a program to do the redistricting, at the very least it should take into account a slew of demographic, economic, and sociological variables.

[DC Al Fine]

I think it should be done nationwide the way Iowa does it, where a computer program draws the lines based on nothing more than population.

That's bound to create districts that look nice and compact but are really monstrosities that lump bits of urban centers together with bits of suburb and bits of countryside. If you want a program to do the redistricting, at the very least it should take into account a slew of demographic, economic, and sociological variables.

Exactly. One needs to take communities of interest into account. A redneck rural area, WASPish suburb and BoBo downtown don't really belong in one district.

[Hatman 🍁]

Exactly - the biggest advantage of FPTP is that they politicians elected are supposed to represent distinct communities (otherwise you're just drawing arbitrary lines on a map). Gerrymandering destroys this. Why bother having districts in the first place, if you're going to do that?

[muon2]

I don't think it has to be done to create swing districts, I think it should be done nationwide the way Iowa does it, where a computer program draws the lines based on nothing more than population. Now obviously some districts are going to be safe under that system. If you drew a district entirely based on the city limits of San Francisco, which party is that seat going to?

Iowa is a good example of what would happen in most states. You'd have one completely safe district for each party, one that's somewhat elastic that will only change parties in a 2014 scenario where nobody votes, and one that's completely neutral and a fair-fight district.

A computer doesn't draw the districts in IA. The humans who draft bills for the IA legislature do it. A computer is used as a tool and reports the measures required by statute. For the whole-county CDs a simulation helps find the CDs with the least variance, but humans then compare that to eliminate choices that are not compact. If the legislature doesn't think it did as well on the measures as it could, the legislature can vote it down and have a new map produced by the same group.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Could be, though I think in practice that's exceedingly unlikely. I think it's worth doing the analysis based on some measure of what is, rather than a mutable measure of what should be.

Honestly, I'm a pretty big fan of the Wisconsin test making its way through the courts. It measures 'wasted' votes, which will be high in gerrymandered districts. In order to rig those maps, they have to either pack Democrats into districts or crack them up and spread them out among many districts to dilute their voting power. The end result is the target party ends up 'wasting' far more votes than the party doing the gerrymandering. Obviously that is a simplified answer, though.

Here is a comprehensive overview:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/understanding-wisconsin-s-legislative-redistricting-trial-the-efficiency-gap-partisan/article_dd107d13-684f-5306-a680-43923fec7027.html

I think this would be a good metric to use in conjunction with something like Dr. Wang's, and probably a PVI approach like muon has suggested too. Detecting gerrymandering is always going to be tough, because we shouldn't expect these things to be linear (that is, it might be completely normal to have all 8 of the legislative seats in an R+10 state go R). I favor a multi-prong approach that looks at lots of different measures to detect whether something fishy is going on. Something like muon's PVI test or the Wisconsin test (or both, taken in conjunction) can be a first pass to see which states need to be examined in more depth with something like Dr. Wang's model.

[Stranger in a strange land]

But I have to vote my conscience!1!1! I can't vote for Hillary because something something emails something something Iraq. Muh pot! Muh drones! #JillNotHill #BernieOrBust

[Enduro]

Don't eliminate gerrymandering because it could benefit you, do it because it's not right.

[heatcharger]

Don't eliminate gerrymandering because it could benefit you, do it because it's not right.

I want to eliminate gerrymandering because it benefits Republicans, which is not right.

[Enduro]

Don't eliminate gerrymandering because it could benefit you, do it because it's not right.

I want to eliminate gerrymandering because it benefits Republicans, which is not right.

Gerrymandering needs to be eliminated if it benefits anyone, not just Republicans.

[MasterJedi]

Don't eliminate gerrymandering because it could benefit you, do it because it's not right.

I want to eliminate gerrymandering because it benefits Republicans, which is not right.

Gerrymandering needs to be eliminated if it benefits anyone, not just Republicans.

Considering Republicans would be complaining if it was Democrats in the same position they're in now I believe both sides only care if it's hurting them at the moment.