Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 16, 2018, 10:24:42 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Tennessee (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Tennessee  (Read 23245 times)
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,300
United States


View Profile
« on: December 11, 2011, 05:50:24 pm »

I don't know what's taking the Tennessee Republicans so long.  Tennessee is an easy draw.

8-1 map clean respectable map is so easy it's ridiculous





Davidson Co. doesn't need to been split 3 or 4 ways.

In my draw I split Davidson exactly in half 360,000 people in each district, and each half is 60.6% Obama.  Both districts as a whole are 54.6% McCain.  Cooper=gone

This is your idea of a "clean" and "respectable" map? Granted, it's not a Maryland-style gerrymander, but it still destroys communities of interest (namely Nashville) for partisan gain.
There is no reason other than partisanship why Davidson County should not remain intact.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,300
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2011, 12:54:07 am »

Splitting a city into two districts doesn't "destroy a community of interest."  It's a partisan play.  All of downtown Nashville is in the yellow district.    Let's compare my split of Davidson Co, and the Dems shreading of Baltimore City/Co and see which one is better..

This isn't about the Maryland gerrymander. I've already admitted that your map is far less egregious than the monstrosity that has been puked up by Maryland Democrats.

This is about you splitting the second-largest city in the state of Tennessee, which has formed the core of a Congressional district for decades, for no other purpose than partisan gain, and passing it off as "clean and respectable" (your very own words). That is the very definition of a gerrymander.

And yes, your map does destroy the community of interest that is the city of Nashville. Nashville residents would be far better served by one district encompassing the entire city than by two districts dominated by its politically polar opposite suburbs.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,300
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2011, 03:25:23 am »

I don't know what's taking the Tennessee Republicans so long.  Tennessee is an easy draw.

8-1 map clean respectable map is so easy it's ridiculous





Davidson Co. doesn't need to been split 3 or 4 ways.

In my draw I split Davidson exactly in half 360,000 people in each district, and each half is 60.6% Obama.  Both districts as a whole are 54.6% McCain.  Cooper=gone

This is your idea of a "clean" and "respectable" map? Granted, it's not a Maryland-style gerrymander, but it still destroys communities of interest (namely Nashville) for partisan gain.
There is no reason other than partisanship why Davidson County should not remain intact.

If you consider metro Nashville to be a "community of interest," then the posted map actually consolidates Metro into two districts, while most other maps split Nashville suburbanites into several districts stretching as far away as Memphis.

You can go back and forth about capricious concepts such as "communities of interest." In redistricting "communities of interest," generally, means, "An area that would benefit me to consolidate into one district!," and not much more.

I consider the city of Nashville to be a community of interest, and its completely politically different suburbs to be a separate community of interest. Timothy's map does indeed consolidate Metro Nashville into two districts. The problem is that both districts are dominated by the suburbs and exurbs, which have very different interests from those of the city itself. As a result, a city with over 600,000 residents is effectively left without representation. The same area can and should be drawn in such a way as to create one district dominated by they city, and one dominated by the suburbs and exurbs.

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

It is a very natural extension of the Michigan transit corridors. The Stabenow district used to extend into Gennessee County. To protect the integrity of the Flint district, Michigan mappers properly removed the 8th from Gennessee altogether and added Clinton County.

Any natural Michigan mapping scheme will begin in the Detroit Region, and after the Detroit 2 and Oakland 2 districts are drawn, only limited population remained in Oakland County, and Livingston County. The natural extension from here based on television and transit corridors is of course west.

Is your map a legit community of interest as it swoops and swerves across numerous counties to rack up far away GOP voters? Of course not! To drive from Howell to Port Huron along the fastest route you would cross through a whopping 4 other Congressional districts before reaching your destination on the far other side of the district.

The other proposed maps have the same types of choices, such as uncompacting the square shaped 6th district to add Battle Creek. The Judge-written Apol standards were written as such knowing that some would tend to abuse curious 'community of interests' ideas and thus instead adhered to defined geographical boundaries. They were not considered 'unfair' until 1 party started losing.


Geographical boundries are fixed. Notions of "communities of interests" are highly subjective and subject to abuse. Excellent observation!

Apperently, I am being accused of inconsistency between this statement, and, my statement, that in practise, while discussing redistricting a "community of interest" is "an area that would benefit me to consolidate!"

Who's accusing you of inconsistency? It certainly isn't me. If anything, I've accused you of being consistently wrong! Smiley

I'm also not the one who dug up a six-month-old post in another thread, apparently as an addendum to the discussion in this thread. If you have a point, I'd like to hear it. It's not as if I have anything better to do on the internet.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,300
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2011, 06:46:57 am »

[quote author=Hans Krueger, Chairman of the Frenem Workers' Party
And, I consider you wrong. The Census Bureau defines metro areas the way they do because they are unified wholes, not an arbitrary mixture of suburbs with urban cores. People in the suburbs often work in the cities, shop in the cities, eat in the cities, etc., while people whom live in the cities often work outside the city, and shop outside the city as well.

There are, of course, links between the city and its suburbs. However, there are also differences. Those differences are, in this case as in most cases, bigger than the differences within the city or the differences between the various suburbs. It makes far more sense to me to have separate representation for the city and for its suburbs than to split both.

Quote
In every election there is a winner and a loser. The people whom vote for the loser aren't as happy with the result as those that vote for the winner. No matter how you divvy up the lines, elections will result in large numbers of voters voting for the loser.

For you to specify one group of losers are being particular aggrieved by backing the losing candidate is just another example of using self-serving standards.

They are not aggrieved by backing the losing candidate. They are aggrieved because the mapmakers decided that those people in particular should be the ones who back the losing candidate.

Quote
Frankly, the political interests of most Americans are safe streets, safety from foreign threats, good schools, decent roads, etc.  Crossing the county line outside of Davidson doesn't particularly alter those priorities.

Political differences arise from how each person thinks those ends should be achieved. Crossing the county line may not alter those fundamental priorities, but by affecting who gets elected, it can substantially alter how those priorities are addressed in Congress.

Quote
Again, no matter how you slice the lines hundreds of thousands of voters in the metro area will back the losing candidates. According to you, they will be, "effectively without representation."

Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.

Quote
That is a perfectly valid split, as was the proposed map. It is simply a political question as to which of the two to implement.

Therein lies the problem. It shouldn't be a political question at all. A neutral map would give one district to the city and one to the suburbs. Only a partisan map would split both.

Quote
I said,

Quote
Geographical boundaries are fixed. Notions of "communities of interests" are highly subjective and subject to abuse. Excellent observation!

Your comments only re-enforce my belief in the correctness of my observation.

That's as may be, but where have you been accused of inconsistency, as you so claim? It is obvious that you care nothing for communities of interest. You don't have to reinforce that point.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,300
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2011, 02:56:06 pm »

Quote from: Hans
Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.

Unless the legislature passes maps in which every district is a swing district, or as many as possible in states like California or Texas, the final maps will have districts that favor certain parties, and/or certain incumbents. That outcome is completely unavoidable.

Of course it is. It doesn't become an issue, though, until communities are split for obvious partisan reasons. The split of the second-largest city in Tennessee, and the state capital to boot, constitutes such partisan intent. To deny so would be naive at best and ignorant at worst.

Quote
You are selectively objecting to that fact when it doesn't favor you in one area. That's ridiculous.

This is simply untrue. I am against any sort of partisan gerrymandering, and have made that position known on this forum multiple times. Maybe I haven't been as vocal about that fact in discussions of Illinois and Maryland because of some deep-seated belief that those maps are some sort of karmic justice for maps like Ohio and North Carolina, but I oppose the gerrymanders in those states nonetheless.

Quote
Second, this simply wasn't your initial claim. Your initial claim was that Davidson County is entitled to at least one Representative in Congress.

My initial claim was that Davidson County should not be split. A district centered in Davidson County would probably elect someone from Davidson County.

Quote
Davidson simply does not have the necessary 705 thousand voters to warrent a full district. It is a mathematical fact that not every block of 626 thousand people are entitled to at least one representative because the average district must be larger than that!

You're splitting hairs. A district that contains Davidson County in its entirety would be dominated, electorally speaking, by Davidson County. Obviously some suburban areas would have to be included in such a district to meet equal population criteria. That fact does not detract from the crux of my argument.

Quote
Somehow, you are claiming that the residents of Davidson has an absolute right that every other block of 626 voters in the country doesn't have.

The premise behind this statement is so absurd that I am not even going to bother rebutting it.

Quote
Baker vs Carr guarantees that every individual has an equal level of representation. I'm not going to take seriously arguments that some people should be made to have more equal representation than others.

Some people, such as residents of suburban Nashville, perhaps? A map that splits Davidson County creates two districts dominated by the suburbs. The suburbs do not have the population for two districts.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines