Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2019, 10:49:41 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  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 24851 times)
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


« 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

Image Link

Image Link

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
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


« 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
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


« 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

Image Link

Image Link

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
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


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

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


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

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC