Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Congressional Elections => Topic started by: krazen1211 on July 18, 2012, 06:52:15 PM



Title: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: krazen1211 on July 18, 2012, 06:52:15 PM
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/news/state-regional/redistricting-petitions-are-short-130000-signature/nPx3M/

Petitioners seeking a constitutional amendment on congressional and state redistricting reform are short on the number of signatures required to put the issue on the November ballot, the Ohio Secretary of State’s office announced Wednesday.

Voters First submitted 466,352 signatures to the office July 3 and 254,625 — about 55 percent — were certified as belonging to registered Ohio voters. Enough signatures were collected in 34 of Ohio’s 88 counties to meet the required 5 percent of the total vote cast for governor in the 2010 election, 10 counties short.

The group has 10 days to submit more than 130,000 valid signatures and meet the county threshold. In three of the state’s largest counties — Cuyahoga, Hamilton and Lucas — more signatures were deemed invalid than valid.




Well, you can put a fork in this one.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 18, 2012, 09:29:03 PM
If Democrats don't want Republicans to have a lock on the House for the next 10 years, they'd pass automatic voter registration in states they control and redistricting commission initiatives in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/States_with_initiative_or_referendum

()

Talk about being incompetent...


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2012, 06:31:16 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: morgieb on July 19, 2012, 06:50:24 AM
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.

The way it should be.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 07:30:42 AM
Who's backing gerrymandering? I've always favored stripping state legislatures of the ability to gerrymander by federal law but that's obviously not going to happen right now and unilaterally disarming means those who play dirty will win.

The fact is Republicans have more seats gerrymandered in OH/TX/FL/NC/PA/etc than Democrats do in Illinois/Maryland/etc and Republicans certainly are not going to back redistricting commissions after the one they did in California and its associated results because it would mean they lose seats.

The only commissions adopted recently were done by ballot measure and as you can see from the map above, not all states allow for initiatives and even the ones that do would probably need a constitutional initiative to avoid the state legislature tampering/overturning it.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2012, 07:38:37 AM
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. 



Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 07:45:10 AM
The problem is there is no way to do this nationwide.

Ask yourself which party in Congress would be more opposed to passing a federal law mandating independent commissions in every state.

The status quo does not benefit the parties 50:50 and when working on a state-by-state basis, it should be done in order of removing the most unfair which means starting with the Republican gerrymanders.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2012, 07:50:32 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 08:04:44 AM
You can't avoid considering the political concerns here. There's 4 options:

1. Federally mandate independent redistricting in every state at the same time
2. Implement redistricting commissions done as soon as possible in any state with no order
3. Implement redistricting commissions in a specific order
4. Leave everything as it is

The reality is option 2 is not the most fair (option 1 is) when you consider the status quo and that not every state has the opportunity to set up commissions but because no one is going to do option 1, we're going to have to rely on option 2/3 and the courts until it becomes so lopsided that everyone demands option 1. That's probably the only way for the Electoral College to die as well.

And the parties suck, I'd like to pass proportional representation alongside the federal redistricting law to allow multiple parties but that's even less likely than independent commissions in every state.

This country's electoral system is terrible.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2012, 08:30:55 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 08:54:20 AM
We know option 3 is going to turn into option 2 once both parties get involved but, again, there are 25 states with no initiative system and unless the federal government gets involved through a federal mandate, those 25 states are unlikely to get commissions. More likely in those states will be a federal court imposed map due to lawsuits or deadlines not being met because of split  legislative control/gubernatorial vetos. Which means the problem persists as the court decisions can be partisan too.

Even if we got commissions in Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, Democrats would probably have a net gain and we get 5 more states without legislative redistricting which is why I was complaining about them being incompetent by not pushing for those commissions in states where it's an option.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2012, 09:02:58 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 09:10:26 AM
Yeah but the states that did have those commissions without a ballot measure (New Jersey, Iowa) were set up a long time ago. It was not a recent development and it's unlikely other states will voluntarily give up their control. Plus the problem with relying on the courts is they have refused to hear most gerrymanders. The North Carolina, Florida, and Illinois maps passed through the court system.

The best solution is a federal independent redistricting mandate.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: tmthforu94 on July 19, 2012, 09:20:28 AM
The problem is there is no way to do this nationwide.

Ask yourself which party in Congress would be more opposed to passing a federal law mandating independent commissions in every state.

The status quo does not benefit the parties 50:50 and when working on a state-by-state basis, it should be done in order of removing the most unfair which means starting with the Republican gerrymanders.
The party that controls the most states would obviously be more opposed. You say this like the GOP are the only bad guy, but I GUARENTEE that if the tables were flipped and the Democrats controlled most state legislatures, a lot of Democrats in Congress would oppose a nonpartisan commission.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 09:28:47 AM
I was directing my comments to the situation that exists today and while tampering with the electoral system to benefit both parties has been a bipartisan effort (look how Democrats/Republicans shut out third parties via FPTP/Top-two runoffs/high filing fees or signature requirements/etc), Republicans have certainly loved pushing measures that making voting and governing harder than necessary (supermajority requirements, unlimited campaign spending, restrictive voting time/registration periods, etc).

Neither of them is innocent, but one is worse than the other. All the more reason to strip them of the ability to tamper with it.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: tmthforu94 on July 19, 2012, 09:32:42 AM
I was directing my comments to the situation that exists today and while tampering with the electoral system to benefit both parties has been a bipartisan effort (look how Democrats/Republicans shut out third parties via FPTP/Top-two runoffs/high filing fees or signature requirements/etc), Republicans have certainly loved pushing measures that making voting and governing harder than necessary (supermajority requirements, unlimited campaign spending, restrictive voting time/registration periods, etc).

Neither of them is innocent, but one is worse than the other. All the more reason to strip them of the ability to tamper with it.
I wouldn't say the GOP is worse. If Democrats had the power, they'd be doing the same thing. However, the people put the GOP in charge.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 19, 2012, 09:41:28 AM
Yeah, one low-turnout midterm election where 50%+ of registered voters didn't vote and a further 20-30% of the electorate wasn't even registered to vote means the party that wins that election should be able to draw maps that keep them in power for the next 10 years? It would be just as wrong if Democrats did that and I would support independent redistricting in that flipped scenario.

The parties should not be able to draw their own seats. It just reinforces our terrible two-party system. I don't like Democrats much at the end of the day but if there's one party that puts 'party before country' it's the Republicans. Just look at them in the Senate.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: TJ in Oregon on July 19, 2012, 11:40:10 AM
How about we propose these commissions for 2020 redistricting instead of the middle of the decade when one party is the clear winner and the other the clear loser? Perhaps if it were something other than an obvious political move it would have support across the board.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 19, 2012, 10:47:03 PM
You can't avoid considering the political concerns here. There's 4 options:

1. Federally mandate independent redistricting in every state at the same time
2. Implement redistricting commissions done as soon as possible in any state with no order
3. Implement redistricting commissions in a specific order
4. Leave everything as it is

The reality is option 2 is not the most fair (option 1 is) when you consider the status quo and that not every state has the opportunity to set up commissions but because no one is going to do option 1, we're going to have to rely on option 2/3 and the courts until it becomes so lopsided that everyone demands option 1. That's probably the only way for the Electoral College to die as well.

And the parties suck, I'd like to pass proportional representation alongside the federal redistricting law to allow multiple parties but that's even less likely than independent commissions in every state.

This country's electoral system is terrible.

I'm a bit puzzled by the part I've bolded. Most studies I have read would argue that moves to a true proportional system tend to strengthen partisanship over individual representation. Italy is sometimes cited as an example where proportional voting leads to voters ignoring the candidates in favor of the label after the name. Is that the direction you prefer?

On the other hand your goal seems to be multiple parties, which can be accomplished with FPTP systems such as in Canada. The need to form majority coalitions in the legislature tends to drive two of the parties to major positions in any system. The question is how to best provide for alternative views.



Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 20, 2012, 12:46:26 AM
You can't avoid considering the political concerns here. There's 4 options:

1. Federally mandate independent redistricting in every state at the same time
2. Implement redistricting commissions done as soon as possible in any state with no order
3. Implement redistricting commissions in a specific order
4. Leave everything as it is

The reality is option 2 is not the most fair (option 1 is) when you consider the status quo and that not every state has the opportunity to set up commissions but because no one is going to do option 1, we're going to have to rely on option 2/3 and the courts until it becomes so lopsided that everyone demands option 1. That's probably the only way for the Electoral College to die as well.

And the parties suck, I'd like to pass proportional representation alongside the federal redistricting law to allow multiple parties but that's even less likely than independent commissions in every state.

This country's electoral system is terrible.

I'm a bit puzzled by the part I've bolded. Most studies I have read would argue that moves to a true proportional system tend to strengthen partisanship over individual representation. Italy is sometimes cited as an example where proportional voting leads to voters ignoring the candidates in favor of the label after the name. Is that the direction you prefer?

On the other hand your goal seems to be multiple parties, which can be accomplished with FPTP systems such as in Canada. The need to form majority coalitions in the legislature tends to drive two of the parties to major positions in any system. The question is how to best provide for alternative views.



I've always been torn on the idea of proportional representation, myself. While it would be fairer in that a party that wins ten percent of the vote wins ten percent of the seats, I still like the idea of having "local" representatives representing districts. That's why I prefer mixed-member proportional or a hybrid such as this (http://mathdl.maa.org/images/upload_library/22/Ford/Balinski.pdf) (I'd implement it differently, though).


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 20, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
You can't avoid considering the political concerns here. There's 4 options:

1. Federally mandate independent redistricting in every state at the same time
2. Implement redistricting commissions done as soon as possible in any state with no order
3. Implement redistricting commissions in a specific order
4. Leave everything as it is

The reality is option 2 is not the most fair (option 1 is) when you consider the status quo and that not every state has the opportunity to set up commissions but because no one is going to do option 1, we're going to have to rely on option 2/3 and the courts until it becomes so lopsided that everyone demands option 1. That's probably the only way for the Electoral College to die as well.

And the parties suck, I'd like to pass proportional representation alongside the federal redistricting law to allow multiple parties but that's even less likely than independent commissions in every state.

This country's electoral system is terrible.

I'm a bit puzzled by the part I've bolded. Most studies I have read would argue that moves to a true proportional system tend to strengthen partisanship over individual representation. Italy is sometimes cited as an example where proportional voting leads to voters ignoring the candidates in favor of the label after the name. Is that the direction you prefer?

On the other hand your goal seems to be multiple parties, which can be accomplished with FPTP systems such as in Canada. The need to form majority coalitions in the legislature tends to drive two of the parties to major positions in any system. The question is how to best provide for alternative views.

As far as I understand it most countries that use proportional representation still have districts via a hybrid system of districts for geographical representation + an at-large distribution of the popular vote for the remaining number of seats so that part of my comment was referring to that lower level of districts and my disdain for the U.S. Democratic/Republican parties.

And whether the system is focused on the individual representative or the party, I don't care too much. I'm more concerned about the issues and FPTP's disproportionate results between the popular vote and the seat distribution gets in the way.

A 10-15% swing (15% more seats than votes) is not uncommon in FPTP, add in some gerrymandering and it can be even worse.

Canada with FPTP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011#Vote_and_seat_summaries

()


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 20, 2012, 04:12:07 PM
As far as I understand it most countries that use proportional representation still have districts via a hybrid system of districts for geographical representation + an at-large distribution of the popular vote for the remaining number of seats so that part of my comment was referring to that lower level of districts and my disdain for the U.S. Democratic/Republican parties.

And whether the system is focused on the individual representative or the party, I don't care too much. I'm more concerned about the issues and FPTP's disproportionate results between the popular vote and the seat distribution gets in the way.

A 10-15% swing (15% more seats than votes) is not uncommon in FPTP, add in some gerrymandering and it can be even worse.

Canada with FPTP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011#Vote_and_seat_summaries

()

The swing is a predictable result of the statistics making selections based on districts. When a population is divided into districts and one selects one or more representatives from that district it is more probable that a representative from a larger segment of the population will be selected. Voting reflects the majority(s) within a district so those are enhanced.

This impacts the redistricting process as well. You are correct that gerrymandering can force the sing more than would happen naturally, but even without gerrymandering the swing will occur. For example in an evenly divided state like OH it is easy to implement rules for partisan balance to create a set of districts that reflects the political balance of that state as a whole. However in a state like MA it is nearly impossible to implement similar rules to get a split of districts that reflect the overall political leaning of the state simply due to the statistics of the majority.

This is also a problem in many states with minority populations large enough to support the creation of a district under the VRA. In some cases the population is too statistically spread to create a viable district to elect a minority candidate of choice except through extreme gerrymandering. Proportional representation for parties doesn't solve this either, since using a larger area (like the whole state) violates the VRA. The use of large multi-member districts in the south to elect a bunch of white Dems despite a significant black population was a reason the VRA was passed.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 20, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
The swing is a predictable result of the statistics making selections based on districts. When a population is divided into districts and one selects one or more representatives from that district it is more probable that a representative from a larger segment of the population will be selected. Voting reflects the majority(s) within a district so those are enhanced.

This impacts the redistricting process as well. You are correct that gerrymandering can force the sing more than would happen naturally, but even without gerrymandering the swing will occur. For example in an evenly divided state like OH it is easy to implement rules for partisan balance to create a set of districts that reflects the political balance of that state as a whole. However in a state like MA it is nearly impossible to implement similar rules to get a split of districts that reflect the overall political leaning of the state simply due to the statistics of the majority.

This is also a problem in many states with minority populations large enough to support the creation of a district under the VRA. In some cases the population is too statistically spread to create a viable district to elect a minority candidate of choice except through extreme gerrymandering. Proportional representation for parties doesn't solve this either, since using a larger area (like the whole state) violates the VRA. The use of large multi-member districts in the south to elect a bunch of white Dems despite a significant black population was a reason the VRA was passed.

Yeah the swing is to be expected because of the nature of district selections but is the sum of these district elections as fair or legitimate as an at-large election? The non-majority vote within those geographic districts is not represented which is not the case with a proportional system where, barring a usually 1-5% vote floor of no representation to avoid clutter or something, xx% of the vote = xx% of the seats.

There are systems out there that correct for the aforementioned swing via a proportional allocation of additional seats that have no geography which is something the U.S and Canadian systems do not have with or without gerrymandering. I think it's one of the many electoral reforms we should adopt in addition to barring legislators from drawing their own districts and it could be done as an update to the VRA if we have to remove any existing legal conflicts.

Quite frankly I wonder why even have geographic representation at all? Why not just have a single at-large election for every seat? Would legislators really ignore the needs of an area just because they don't individually geographically represent it? I suppose it would be confusing as to which representative you're supposed to write to but is that it?

As a (timely) example, a suburban city here in the area is currently debating (http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2012/04/ex-councilor_richard_strathern.html) a ballot initiative to switch the city council from an at-large model for the councilors to a divided geographic district model and the main complaint from proponents for changing it seems to be that all of the current councilors live in the same area. I could see how that bothers people but honestly if I lived there I would probably vote no on the change.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 20, 2012, 08:41:12 PM
Quite frankly I wonder why even have geographic representation at all? Why not just have a single at-large election for every seat? Would legislators really ignore the needs of an area just because they don't individually geographically represent it? I suppose it would be confusing as to which representative you're supposed to write to but is that it?

As a (timely) example, a suburban city here in the area is currently debating (http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2012/04/ex-councilor_richard_strathern.html) a ballot initiative to switch the city council from an at-large model for the councilors to a divided geographic district model and the main complaint from proponents for changing it seems to be that all of the current councilors live in the same area. I could see how that bothers people but honestly if I lived there I would probably vote no on the change.

Your example is exactly the problem with an all at-large system. My experience with local communities is that in at-large systems areas without a representative do get overlooked. They represent a small part of the vote in a large jurisdiction so the representative caters to the base which is often their personal locale.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 20, 2012, 08:55:49 PM
Well even if it was a big deal on levels above city/county, that's a purely 100% proportional system which as far as I know is not used by any state or country?

The hybrid model most proportional representation (PR) countries use of local districts below an-large distribution to correct for the FPTP swing eliminates the problems of the non-represented minority vote in geographic districts and the overlooked geographic areas in pure PR systems.

Aren't there examples of pure FPTP extremes? Like the Chicago City Council where all 50 members are from the same party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_City_Council


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 20, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
Well even if it was a big deal on levels above city/county, that's a purely 100% proportional system which as far as I know is not used by any state or country?

The hybrid model most proportional representation (PR) countries use of local districts below an-large distribution to correct for the FPTP swing eliminates the problems of the non-represented minority vote in geographic districts and the overlooked geographic areas in pure PR systems.

Aren't there examples of pure FPTP extremes? Like the Chicago City Council where all 50 members are from the same party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_City_Council

Actually none of the Chicago City Council are elected on a partisan ballot. They are elected as nonpartisan office holders, though all have voted most recently as Dems in partisan primaries which establishes them in a party since there is no party registration in IL. Until 2011 there was an Alderman who voted Pub.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 20, 2012, 11:39:13 PM
Well there are other examples like the Massachusetts Senate (~90% Democrat) or the Hawaii Senate (95% D with 24D-1R). A 60% popular vote might be realistic in some cases but what good comes from an artificial 90% seat distribution?

A swing from 3/5 or 2/3 to 3/4 or 4/5 won't bother people as much as a swing from 2/5 to 50%+ because the first didn't change the outcome of the election (ignoring supermajority requirements such as amending constitutions) but I don't see why we even need to tolerate this disproportionate swing when there are electoral systems out there that can eliminate it.

FPTP is low on the bar for fair representation. I don't think any country should adopt it for its legislature(s).


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 21, 2012, 12:43:31 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 21, 2012, 07:46:37 AM
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. ::)


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 21, 2012, 01:13:12 PM
Well there are other examples like the Massachusetts Senate (~90% Democrat) or the Hawaii Senate (95% D with 24D-1R). A 60% popular vote might be realistic in some cases but what good comes from an artificial 90% seat distribution?

A swing from 3/5 or 2/3 to 3/4 or 4/5 won't bother people as much as a swing from 2/5 to 50%+ because the first didn't change the outcome of the election (ignoring supermajority requirements such as amending constitutions) but I don't see why we even need to tolerate this disproportionate swing when there are electoral systems out there that can eliminate it.

FPTP is low on the bar for fair representation. I don't think any country should adopt it for its legislature(s).

Have you thought about cumulative voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting) as a way to provide some proportionality while maintaining local districts? IL used it quite successfully from 1870 to 1980.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 21, 2012, 01:30:00 PM
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.

Have you thought about cumulative voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting) as a way to provide some proportionality while maintaining local districts? IL used it quite successfully from 1870 to 1980.

I'm open to any system that gets as close to being proportional as possible without having downsides that outweigh the upsides but I think the reality is we're not going to be able to talk about real electoral reform if we can't even get independent redistricting to remove blatant gerrymanders. I honestly doubt the U.S. will structurally change its electoral system anytime in my lifetime. We might see some advances in automating voter registration or improving the vote window with early/postal voting and maybe undoing the Electoral College, but with the speed we're going at, I doubt FPTP really gets touched.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 21, 2012, 01:49:51 PM
I linked to this proposal (http://mathdl.maa.org/images/upload_library/22/Ford/Balinski.pdf) earlier in the thread. I'm just curious as to whether or not either of you have read it.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 21, 2012, 02:09:01 PM
If you're talking to me, I think it's interesting. I'm certainly no expert on electoral systems but I think the point of this thread is that the U.S. isn't going to touch anything like that given that the two parties benefit from the status quo and voters are unlikely to ditch FPTP on their own.

It looks like the only thing we might see in 2012 is a referendum on Maryland's maps and maybe Ohio getting this commission on the ballot to redraw maps for 2014 and on which is not going to solve the problem nationally. Absent a Supreme Court ruling mandating changes to the redistricting process or electoral system, I don't think we're going to see much change.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Torie on July 21, 2012, 07:57:28 PM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 21, 2012, 10:22:55 PM
I linked to this proposal (http://mathdl.maa.org/images/upload_library/22/Ford/Balinski.pdf) earlier in the thread. I'm just curious as to whether or not either of you have read it.

I read it and think it fails on two counts. First is that it is clearly unconstitutional in that the reweighting of votes causes some votes to be worth more than others. This violates OMOV, and strikes me as falling in a category such as counting slaves as 3/5 a person for reapportionment. I get that the author is trying to merge a list system with single districts but in a list system all are elected from the same constituency so there is no reweighting needed - just determine the party proportions then count the votes for candidates within each party.

The second failing is that it purports to maintain a sense of representation within a district, but part of that requires the ability to recognize when a district is more important than a party. The system here puts the party well ahead of the individual in a way that serves partisan interests, but not popular will. I'd rather see a nonpartisan legislature like NE that reduces party roles rather than this plan that accentuates them.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: muon2 on July 21, 2012, 10:42:56 PM
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.

Indeed I would conclude that the commission doesn't have to be particularly "independent" if the constraints are sufficiently tight. In the aforementioned article the author points out that with a single constraint for population equality all sorts of gerrymandering can result.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: minionofmidas on July 22, 2012, 04:50:36 AM
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).


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 22, 2012, 12:09:32 PM
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. :P

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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 22, 2012, 05:22:26 PM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 23, 2012, 07:40:22 AM
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:
Quote
If Democrats don't want Republicans to have a lock on the House for the next 10 years,

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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: krazen1211 on July 23, 2012, 12:10:36 PM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Miles on July 23, 2012, 12:46:32 PM
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."


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: krazen1211 on July 23, 2012, 01:09:20 PM
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."

That's true, except for the fact that when many people label a state as 'lean D' or 'lean R', and label a mapping scheme as representative of the state or not, they tend to do so based on the Presidential race rather than an obscure downballot race.


I reject the notion that a district like, say, MI-01, in the old map and the new, can be considered 'gerrymandered' merely because a Republican wins it after a Democrat held it for years.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 23, 2012, 02:56:33 PM
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:
Quote
If Democrats don't want Republicans to have a lock on the House for the next 10 years,

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.

You stated opposition as if there's a realistic alternative (50 commissions in all states at the same time or the two parties agreeing to eliminating legislative control of redistricting) to the deeply partisan-at-the-expense-of-the-system status quo where Republicans do have a gerrymandered lock on the House (and many state legislatures) for 10 years, especially if the Ohio commission fails.

I mentioned that because it's the reality with the sum of all the partisan redistrictings and while taking out two to three only Republican gerrymanders (and leaving Illinois) in favor of redistricting commissions might seem unfair in the context of just those three states, it's quite fair in the context of all 50 states combined where there are more Republican gerrymanders than Democratic gerrymanders and many of the states with the worst Republican gerrymanders are "safe" from the threat of independent redistricting.

Unfortunately redistricting is a dirty game at this point and unilaterally disarming is not going to increase the legitimacy of the system, it's just going to allow the people who do want to take advantage of things at the expense of the system or the people to do it.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 08:42:35 AM
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?


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: greenforest32 on July 24, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 09:16:12 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 09:21:11 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Cliff Racer on July 29, 2012, 08:38:05 PM
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 30, 2012, 09:30:13 AM
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! :P


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Cliff Racer on July 30, 2012, 05:26:10 PM
How is Speaker Pelosi doing these days? ::)

Really! :P
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 30, 2012, 06:54:55 PM
That was just the (disgusting) gerrymander working, darling.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: BigSkyBob on July 30, 2012, 08:47:13 PM
How is Speaker Pelosi doing these days? ::)

Really! :P
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.

We can take it for granted that if every incumbent lacked the personal flaws they do have incumbent, in general, would do a bit better on election day. Then again, if every challenger lacked the personal flaws they do have, they too might do a bit better on election day. And, if the true character of every person standing for office the first time was generally known, Congress probably wouldn't have as many mean drunks as it does have.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Cliff Racer on July 31, 2012, 11:42:18 AM
That was just the (disgusting) gerrymander working, darling.
Which is exactly what I said?


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 31, 2012, 09:12:04 PM
How is Speaker Pelosi doing these days? ::)

Really! :P
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.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Miles on August 07, 2012, 12:00:45 PM
Looks like the redistricting amendment made it onto the ballot after all.  (http://www.wtrf.com/story/19209620/redistricting-plan-makes-ohio-ballot-on-2nd-effort)


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: krazen1211 on September 11, 2012, 01:58:53 PM
Republicans knew what they were doing with the ballot wording for the Ohio redistricting referendum. Last month we found voters in the state supported an independent redistricting commission by a 37/24 margin. But with the official ballot language, which frames the commission as 'removing the authority of elected representatives' and giving it to appointed officials, only 33% of voters now say they support the amendment to 38% who are opposed.




Great news!


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Gass3268 on September 11, 2012, 02:21:32 PM
Then hopefully this lawsuit successes

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/redistricting_reform_proponent.html


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Gass3268 on September 13, 2012, 04:20:31 PM
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/09/ohio_supreme_court_says_ballot.html

The text of the ballot measure is going to have to be reworded.



Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 13, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
Let's hope the Democrats (and not just the state Democrats, but the national Democrats) invest heavily in making sure this passes.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Badger on September 16, 2012, 06:13:26 PM
Republicans knew what they were doing with the ballot wording for the Ohio redistricting referendum. Last month we found voters in the state supported an independent redistricting commission by a 37/24 margin. But with the official ballot language, which frames the commission as 'removing the authority of elected representatives' and giving it to appointed officials, only 33% of voters now say they support the amendment to 38% who are opposed.




Great news!

Yes, the language was literally the worst imaginable in terms of partisanship and slanting the ballot language against the facts. Rammed through by the gop sec of state machinery.
'Great news'? ??? But Krazy, I thought you were against ALL "vicious gerrymanders"? SURELY you're not just being a shamelessly partisan hack without scruples. :'(


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Badger on September 16, 2012, 06:21:06 PM
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/09/ohio_supreme_court_says_ballot.html

The text of the ballot measure is going to have to be reworded.



I hadn't heard about this before. To put this in perspective, 5 of the 6 Republicans on the Court (and it's sole Democrat; all elected) nixed the proposed ballot language.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: krazen1211 on September 16, 2012, 07:46:44 PM
Republicans knew what they were doing with the ballot wording for the Ohio redistricting referendum. Last month we found voters in the state supported an independent redistricting commission by a 37/24 margin. But with the official ballot language, which frames the commission as 'removing the authority of elected representatives' and giving it to appointed officials, only 33% of voters now say they support the amendment to 38% who are opposed.




Great news!

Yes, the language was literally the worst imaginable in terms of partisanship and slanting the ballot language against the facts. Rammed through by the gop sec of state machinery.
'Great news'? ??? But Krazy, I thought you were against ALL "vicious gerrymanders"? SURELY you're not just being a shamelessly partisan hack without scruples. :'(

Vicious gerrymandering is an American ideal. What is there to be against?


The Republicans in, say, Texas, have to seek retribution for a century of such vicious gerrymandering.


Title: Re: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
Post by: Badger on September 18, 2012, 03:00:41 PM
Republicans knew what they were doing with the ballot wording for the Ohio redistricting referendum. Last month we found voters in the state supported an independent redistricting commission by a 37/24 margin. But with the official ballot language, which frames the commission as 'removing the authority of elected representatives' and giving it to appointed officials, only 33% of voters now say they support the amendment to 38% who are opposed.




Great news!

Yes, the language was literally the worst imaginable in terms of partisanship and slanting the ballot language against the facts. Rammed through by the gop sec of state machinery.
'Great news'? ??? But Krazy, I thought you were against ALL "vicious gerrymanders"? SURELY you're not just being a shamelessly partisan hack without scruples. :'(

Vicious gerrymandering is an American ideal. What is there to be against?


The Republicans in, say, Texas, have to seek retribution for a century of such vicious gerrymandering.

Self-parody achieved. Congratulations.