Partisan Gerrymandering
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:04:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Partisan Gerrymandering
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Partisan Gerrymandering  (Read 2075 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 30, 2011, 07:22:24 PM »
« edited: June 02, 2011, 10:02:49 AM by muon2 »

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 The VRA sucks, and has long since outlasted its usefulness, and should be repealed.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? Smiley
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2011, 07:23:13 PM »

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?
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2011, 07:26:20 PM »
« Edited: June 02, 2011, 10:03:53 AM by muon2 »

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? Smiley

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?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2011, 07:40:11 PM »
« Edited: June 02, 2011, 10:04:11 AM by muon2 »

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? Smiley

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. Tongue

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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2011, 08:00:03 PM »

Actually the Michigan map is a worse gerry than Illinois vis a vis each party's vote share. Is that because the Dems have a more robust "fairness" gene than Pubbies? No! It is because of the VRA, and because Hispanics and blacks are just not that turned on by being represented by white liberals. Pubbies don't have to "worry" about minority sensibilities much, since their ranks are rather "bleached" as it were.

I hope that clears it all up, and we can move on. Thanks.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2011, 08:49:22 PM »
« Edited: June 02, 2011, 10:04:56 AM by muon2 »

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? Smiley

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. Tongue

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?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2011, 10:08:35 AM »

There have been a couple of subthreads on the philosophy of partisan gerrymandering that popped up over the holiday weekend. Unfortunately some parts devolved into flamewars, and became a distraction to the underlying thread.

I admit that I have applied a blunt instrument to clean up some of these, but I do want to leave a thread for a continued discussion that can avoid parsonal attacks. To that end I have attached part of the subthread from the MI discussion as a starting point.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2011, 12:48:19 AM »

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? Smiley
Simpler to give a representative 0.001 votes for each 700 persons he represents.  If he represents 700,000 persons he will have 1.000 votes.  If he represents 770,000 persons, then he would have 1.100 votes.   If he represents 630,000 persons, then he would have 0.900 votes.

If people didn't like their representative, they could just vote to move to a different district.  Their new representative would have more political power, their old representative less.  If a district becomes too large, it gets split in half.  If it gets too small, it is dissolved and the voters have to choose a new district.

After each census, the districts are re-weighted.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2011, 09:17:53 AM »

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

No disagreement there.  Or with your other statements.

Of course, I suspect that Section 5 preclearance is going to be going the way of the dodo bird pretty soon unless one of the "conservative" judges kicks the bucket in the next 5 years.  That's what their rulings hint at.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2011, 10:56:49 AM »

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.

For black voters? Not really relevant, since Republicans are eager to pack them into as few districts as possible. I can't really think of a single state where they'd try to crack black voters. And Democrats would love to be able to drop VRA district percentages below 50% (certainly in most areas a black VAP of about 40% would be more than sufficient to elect a black candidate) and share the wealth in other districts.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2011, 04:03:56 PM »
« Edited: June 03, 2011, 04:05:52 PM by cinyc »

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.

For black voters? Not really relevant, since Republicans are eager to pack them into as few districts as possible. I can't really think of a single state where they'd try to crack black voters. And Democrats would love to be able to drop VRA district percentages below 50% (certainly in most areas a black VAP of about 40% would be more than sufficient to elect a black candidate) and share the wealth in other districts.

The problem with using the VRA to "protect" Hispanic voters is that Hispanic voters aren't as monolithic as African-Americans.  A good percentage of Hispanics vote Republican - much more than the 10% or so of African-Americans do.  "Protecting" Hispanic voters by making sure Hispanic districts elect Democrats effectively disenfranchises Republican-voting Hispanics (and, since race is all that matters under the VRA, whatever other Republicans of whatever other race are put in that district to make sure the "correct" percentage of the "special" minority are put in that district, but not more).

The VRA is an anachronistic law whose time has long past.  If anything, it ensures greater political division among races instead of integration.  There's no sense being a black Republican in a VRA district, since no Republican could possibly win.  If the VRA didn't exist and geography and compactness were to trump all instead of race, there would be more competitive districts and courting African-American votes would matter more to Republican Congressional and local candidates.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2011, 07:22:16 PM »
« Edited: June 03, 2011, 07:59:54 PM by 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.]  

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2011, 07:40:14 PM »

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?
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2011, 08:47:45 PM »

I have another question to add on:  If the outcome is to create a competitive district rather than to crack the Minority population (like say drawing a seat taking in all the Corpus Christi area which is probably about 50/50 D/R overall and about 63% Hispanic) legitimate under the VRA?  You're not gerrymandering the area at all, you're respecting existing geographic/demographic boundaries, and you're creating a legitimately competitive district so that the Hispanic vote is heavily courted by both sides.

I mean the alternative is to draw separate districts for the Hispanic and white Parts, both breaking a strong COI and creating 2 safe seats so that the voting preferences of the people of Corpus Christi don't actually matter.  It just doesn't seem like the latter option is respecting the voting intentions of Corpus Christi's minority population any more than the former one.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2011, 11:04:20 PM »

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.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2011, 09:39:38 AM »

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"]


Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2011, 10:01:11 AM »

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.


To elect Hispanic republicans, actually, like Mr. Canseco.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2011, 10:07:58 AM »

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?


Any district with only Hispanics and whites is liable to swing in the right conditions. The only solutions are to put in excess hispanics, or to put in blacks, in which case they're the ones really determining the outcome as they have huge influence over Democratic primaries.

Some people want districts for Hispanics to elect Democrats that also don't have excess Hispanics. That is wholly inconsistent.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2011, 10:44:30 AM »

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. The best analysis would look at election results in both the primary and general election. Data by precinct can be fit through regression or similar techniques to model voter preference based on race or ethnicity. The model can then be applied to determine the most probable outcome for a particular district in the absence of external factors like incumbency.

Since this type of modeling requires data for a particular district it can't easily be converted into a fixed percentage. Some advocacy groups will substitute a percentage to use as a rule of thumb during the map making process. For example, MALDEF has frequently used 65% of the total population as a benchmark for Hispanic districts. However a court will generally want a more substantial analysis should a map face a legal challenge.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2011, 10:44:34 PM »

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?



Quote
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.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2011, 11:54:17 PM »

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?



Quote
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.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2011, 06:50:32 AM »

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?



Quote
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.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2011, 08:52:16 AM »

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?



Quote
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.

Because the courts have been vague on the math, there have been more than one type of statistical analysis of voting preference that has been used to justify or overturn minority districts. At a conference earlier this year I heard about at least three such methods. Needless to say, competing methods can give different results for the same district.

There's no question that the parties will attempt to use VRA districts as part of their strategy to draw the map in their favor. The use of competing methods to determine the ability of a district to perform electorally for the minority party is part of the legal strategy. Consideration of minority voting strength in a primary is also part of the strategy, but how much weight it is given will depend on which party is using it.

It is also the case that the behavior of the parties on these question will be different for different minority groups. The cohesiveness and turnout rates of the minority groups are not the same, and this impacts whichever statistical analysis is performed. The one likelihood is that the parties will select a model and data set that best supports their desired goals for a map. Then it's up to the lawyers to sell that model to the court.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2011, 09:46:50 AM »


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.
Quite rightly so, as a different reason for asking is impossible to imagine.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.242 seconds with 12 queries.