Partisan Gerrymandering

[BigSkyBob]

No matter how sinister you try to phrase it, "the philosophy and morality of gerrymandering" is, perhaps, the most important topic here.

How can you conclude that that's what's most important to the posters here, especially as someone who recently joined?

Let me speak for everyone here: "the philosophy and morality of gerrymandering" is emphatically NOT why we post to and read this board. We do so for the love of the data and maps, to share our creations and our thoughts, to debate different approaches and possibilities. If we got into discussions of morality, it would fracture the peace people of different political persuasions enjoy on the major issues. This is why you are generating such conflict.

Here's some math for you to analyze: there are a large number of Democratic leaning posters here and a limited number of conservative posters. Three of those conservative leaning posters are being attacked, and none of the Democratic leaning posters. A number of the Democratic posters have entered into extensive discussions about "gerrymandering" concerning the Republican maps in Minnesota and Michigan. The three before=mentioned conservative leaning posters have characterized the Illinois map as "disgraceful," or such. What do you think the conditional probability is that Democratic partisan bias is an issue in claims of poor behavior?

[BigSkyBob]

My purpose here is very simple - to try to draw maps "better" or at least as well as those with the power to draw the maps, and have the votes, might draw them - all things considered.  If I had time, I would play with gutting the Pubbies in Illinois. But I don't these days, and to do it right takes a lot of work! Ohio took me about 40 hours - yes 40 hours.

And nobody here gerrymanders pretending it is anything else,at least of whom I am aware. And of course it is horrible public policy.  How could one argue otherwise? The districts should be drawn the way they are in Britain, and should really be drawn on a national basis to overcome provincialism. But obviously it is dumb for one state to unilaterally "disarm" while others continue to draw erose monsters.

Oh, and one other thing. The VRA sucks, and has long since outlasted its usefulness, and should be repealed.

Does anyone have any questions?

Congratulations, you have offered a completely consistent position.

Here;s a question: why does the circulated Republican map in Michigan have a finger than that juts back into Wayne County? Why didn't they just swap some territory between the two Black-majority districts?

[BigSkyBob]

My purpose here is very simple - to try to draw maps "better" or at least as well as those with the power to draw the maps, and have the votes, might draw them - all things considered.  If I had time, I would play with gutting the Pubbies in Illinois. But I don't these days, and to do it right takes a lot of work! Ohio took me about 40 hours - yes 40 hours.

And nobody here gerrymanders pretending it is anything else,at least of whom I am aware. And of course it is horrible public policy.  How could one argue otherwise? The districts should be drawn the way they are in Britain, and should really be drawn on a national basis to overcome provincialism. But obviously it is dumb for one state to unilaterally "disarm" while others continue to draw erose monsters.

Oh, and one other thing. The VRA sucks, and has long since outlasted its usefulness, and should be repealed.

Does anyone have any questions?

Congratulations, you have offered a completely consistent position.

Here;s a question: why does the circulated Republican map in Michigan have a finger than that juts back into Wayne County? Why didn't they just swap some territory between the two Black-majority districts?

Well because if you mean MI-11 to equalize population, because the incumbent lives there, and because that territory goes from modest Dem PVI, to marginal to as high as about a 5-7 GOP PVI, that is why. Or do you mean something else? I am the guy to ask; I know this area now almost precinct by precinct.

The jut of MI-14 after entering Oakland back down south into Wayne to take in Redford probably was convenient to make both MI-14 and MI-13 over 50% black VAP, while avoiding otherwise illegal town splits to the extent one can comply with the VRA while not doing such splits.

I meant the latter. Okay, is Redford heavily White, or heavily Black, or inbetween? Is there a district wholely in Detroit in the new map?

[BigSkyBob]

I think the VRA is still relevant when protecting Hispanic voters; I mean, without VRA protection, the Hispanic districts would be at the mercy of Republicans who are all too eager to create pseudo-Hispanic districts that elect white Republicans.

As opposed to Democrats whom would either "crack" Hispanics so that districts would be "pseudo-Hispanic" [aka VAP Hispanic majority] that elect liberal Whites or "Hispanic influence," [aka "Influential" enough to elect a White liberal.]  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except for the reality that their Democrats whom would "crack" Blacks so that more Democrats, and no Black Democrats would be elected in a number of areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A policy that would be good for the number of White liberal Democrats and bad for the number of Black Democrats.


It would also mean that White Democats could deny the Black candidate prefered by the majority of Black voters in the primary the nomination to another Black whom was the prefered Black of White voters.

[BigSkyBob]

On Hispanics and VRA:

1) Solomon Ortiz, an Hispanic Democrat, was beaten in 2010 by an Anglo Republican in a district that is, presumably, protected by the VRA. In that election, the "prefered" candidate of Hispanic voters was Ortiz. Was this outcome illegal under the VRA?


2) "Hispanics" is an artificial aggregation of various groups including Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans. In Illinois, the "Hispanics" on the North side  are more Puerto Rican, while the Hispanics on the South side are heavily Mexican. Under the assumption that "prefered" candidate of Mexicans would be another Mexican, and the "prefered" candidate of a Puerto Rican would be a fellow Puerto Rican, isn't it the case that a fairly contiguous group of Mexicans are being gerrymandered so that they cannot elect the candidate of their choice?

Drawing a Mexican distict on the South side would require that the Puerto Rican incumbent would have to run in a district that only about 50% Hispanic so the net effect may very well be the same number of elected Hispanics, but, does that negate the right of Mexicans in an area compact and numerous enough to elect the candidate of their choice that right?

[BigSkyBob]

On Hispanics and VRA:

1) Solomon Ortiz, an Hispanic Democrat, was beaten in 2010 by an Anglo Republican in a district that is, presumably, protected by the VRA. In that election, the "prefered" candidate of Hispanic voters was Ortiz. Was this outcome illegal under the VRA?

The VRA is not out any specific outcome. It's about the opportunity for the minority to elect the candidate of its choice. Elections are not strictly deterministic, and an opportunity is realistically a statistical statement of likelihood. If a specific outcome recurs despite other electoral factors, it probably show whether an opportunity exists or not.

Question: what percentage do you believe reflects that "opportunity?" 90%? 80%? 70%? 60%? 50%? 40%? 30%? ["statistical  statement of likelihood"]

[BigSkyBob]

On Hispanics and VRA:

1) Solomon Ortiz, an Hispanic Democrat, was beaten in 2010 by an Anglo Republican in a district that is, presumably, protected by the VRA. In that election, the "prefered" candidate of Hispanic voters was Ortiz. Was this outcome illegal under the VRA?

The VRA is not out any specific outcome. It's about the opportunity for the minority to elect the candidate of its choice. Elections are not strictly deterministic, and an opportunity is realistically a statistical statement of likelihood. If a specific outcome recurs despite other electoral factors, it probably show whether an opportunity exists or not.

Question: what percentage do you believe reflects that "opportunity?" 90%? 80%? 70%? 60%? 50%? 40%? 30%? ["statistical  statement of likelihood"]

The percentage depends on the particular area.

No, as a simple matter of logic, the percentage is exactly the same in every area.The percentage of minority voting age population could vary dramatically, but, the likelihood that that minority candidate wins ought to be identical in every area. Does the minority candidate have a reasonably fair shot at winning if his odds of winning are 50%, or does the VRA mean that he must have a greater than even chance of winnings, say 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95% etc?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't an answer to the question I asked. I didn't ask what the minority population ought to be to insure a  fair shoot at electing the prefered candidate. I asked, what probability defines a fair chance.

[BigSkyBob]

On Hispanics and VRA:

1) Solomon Ortiz, an Hispanic Democrat, was beaten in 2010 by an Anglo Republican in a district that is, presumably, protected by the VRA. In that election, the "prefered" candidate of Hispanic voters was Ortiz. Was this outcome illegal under the VRA?

The VRA is not out any specific outcome. It's about the opportunity for the minority to elect the candidate of its choice. Elections are not strictly deterministic, and an opportunity is realistically a statistical statement of likelihood. If a specific outcome recurs despite other electoral factors, it probably show whether an opportunity exists or not.

Question: what percentage do you believe reflects that "opportunity?" 90%? 80%? 70%? 60%? 50%? 40%? 30%? ["statistical  statement of likelihood"]

The percentage depends on the particular area.

No, as a simple matter of logic, the percentage is exactly the same in every area.The percentage of minority voting age population could vary dramatically, but, the likelihood that that minority candidate wins ought to be identical in every area. Does the minority candidate have a reasonably fair shot at winning if his odds of winning are 50%, or does the VRA mean that he must have a greater than even chance of winnings, say 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95% etc?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't an answer to the question I asked. I didn't ask what the minority population ought to be to insure a  fair shoot at electing the prefered candidate. I asked, what probability defines a fair chance.

As much as you would like a hard and fast probability, the courts have made it clear that it won't be defined that way. The SCOTUS will not give the states a safe harbor for redistricting minority populations, since past history leads them to believe that the states will inevitably find a loophole to deny minorities the ability to elect candidates of choice.

My background is in mathematics and I would love to offer a clear statistical test. However, the only answer that is applicable to the VRA is a legal answer, which is what I provided.

"Realistically a statistical statement of likelihood," given my background in math sounds something on the order of a two sigma event, or more. While courts may have been deliberately vague, surely, their words can be estimated by some ballpark figure.

One point is that "realistically, a statistical statement of likelihood" is a standard that a party could use to create favorable seats in redistricting. In other words, courts are demanding gerrymandered districts in which the outcome is, barring extraordinary circumstances, predecided before election day. [Except in gerrymandering the majority party might cut the seats a little more closely to maximize the number of seats.]

The second point is whatever that standard is, it isn't resulting in the prefered candidate of the protected class winning the nomination of the prefer party in the primary. Davis beat Hilliard in Alabama on the strength of White voters, while Hilliard was the "prefered" candidate of Blacks in the district. Sure Davis, like Hilliard, was Black, but he wasn't the "prefered" candidates of Blacks.