Thread for arguing about Connecticut redistricting

[Frenchrepublican]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

[Pericles]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Pretty sure CT isn't gerrymandered, OR I'm not sure about (maybe, but not that much if it is). Republican gerrymanders are clearly both more effective and much, much more common. The Maryland gerrymander also was taken to court lol.

[Frenchrepublican]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Pretty sure CT isn't gerrymandered, OR I'm not sure about (maybe, but not that much if it is). Republican gerrymanders are clearly both more effective and much, much more common. The Maryland gerrymander also was taken to court lol.

A fair map in CT would result in 3 Safe D CDs, 1 Likely D CD but also in 1 Likely R CD centered around Litchfield county and exurbs of Springfield and New Hartford

As for OR, a fair map would send a 3/2 D/R House delegation in Washington

Concerning the MD map you are right, it was challenged before federal courts and the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, but « good government » groups which are technically non partisan could have then challenged the map in front of MD statewide courts

[Pericles]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Pretty sure CT isn't gerrymandered, OR I'm not sure about (maybe, but not that much if it is). Republican gerrymanders are clearly both more effective and much, much more common. The Maryland gerrymander also was taken to court lol.

A fair map in CT would result in 3 Safe D CDs, 1 Likely D CD but also in 1 Likely R CD centered around Litchfield county and exurbs of Springfield and New Hartford

No only actually gerrymandering it for Republicans could do that.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#GOP

[Frenchrepublican]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Pretty sure CT isn't gerrymandered, OR I'm not sure about (maybe, but not that much if it is). Republican gerrymanders are clearly both more effective and much, much more common. The Maryland gerrymander also was taken to court lol.

A fair map in CT would result in 3 Safe D CDs, 1 Likely D CD but also in 1 Likely R CD centered around Litchfield county and exurbs of Springfield and New Hartford

No only actually gerrymandering it for Republicans could do that.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#GOP

No, not really

Look at this one : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#Compact

[Pericles]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Pretty sure CT isn't gerrymandered, OR I'm not sure about (maybe, but not that much if it is). Republican gerrymanders are clearly both more effective and much, much more common. The Maryland gerrymander also was taken to court lol.

A fair map in CT would result in 3 Safe D CDs, 1 Likely D CD but also in 1 Likely R CD centered around Litchfield county and exurbs of Springfield and New Hartford

No only actually gerrymandering it for Republicans could do that.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#GOP

No, not really

Look at this one : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#Compact

You said likely R though that's more like Lean R at best.

[Frenchrepublican]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Pretty sure CT isn't gerrymandered, OR I'm not sure about (maybe, but not that much if it is). Republican gerrymanders are clearly both more effective and much, much more common. The Maryland gerrymander also was taken to court lol.

A fair map in CT would result in 3 Safe D CDs, 1 Likely D CD but also in 1 Likely R CD centered around Litchfield county and exurbs of Springfield and New Hartford

No only actually gerrymandering it for Republicans could do that.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#GOP

No, not really

Look at this one : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/connecticut/#Compact

You said likely R though that's more like Lean R at best.

Lean R if you are using the 2012/2016 presidential average results, Likely R if you’re using only the 2016 results

[cvparty]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

in what world is oregon gerrymandered

[smoltchanov]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Well, anyone has a right to complain about "Democratic gerrymandering", but Republicans. If you are serial killer - you can't blame someone for minor traffic violation)))). NC/IN/OH/PA, do i need to continue?

[vileplume]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Well, anyone has a right to complain about "Democratic gerrymandering", but Republicans. If you are serial killer - you can't blame someone for minor traffic violation)))). NC/IN/OH/PA, do i need to continue?

As an outside observer Indiana is not Gerrymandered at all. The districts are clean with minimal county splits and are largely based where they 'should' be. The map looks miles better than the 2003-2013 incarnation which had weird, illogical shaped districts. The fact that the congressional delegation is a reasonably assured 7-2 Republican is down to the First Past the Post system and the political geography of the state not because it's gerrymandered.

[smoltchanov]

Likely D. Anyway it would be stupid to target this district considering that Madigan will gerrymander it in order to make it even more D friendly (you know gerrymandering is good when democrats do it.)

Most people who oppose gerrymandering oppose it for both sides, gerrymandering is bad because it's undemocratic not just for partisan reasons. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Sure.... you’re really gullible if you believe that democratic politicians / progressive third-groups don’t like gerrymandering, they just want it to benefit them and only them, otherwise the League of Women voters and other « good government » liberal organizations would have already challenged congressional maps in MD/IL/CT/OR

Well, anyone has a right to complain about "Democratic gerrymandering", but Republicans. If you are serial killer - you can't blame someone for minor traffic violation)))). NC/IN/OH/PA, do i need to continue?

As an outside observer Indiana is not Gerrymandered at all. The districts are clean with minimal county splits and are largely based where they 'should' be. The map looks miles better than the 2003-2013 incarnation which had weird, illogical shaped districts. The fact that the congressional delegation is a reasonably assured 7-2 Republican is down to the First Past the Post system and the political geography of the state not because it's gerrymandered.

Good. Agree. Strike out Indiana. North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio are more, then enough, by itself.

[Landslide Lyndon]

IIRC, Connecticut needs two thirds majorities to pass its maps. So obviously no Dem gerrymander could pass, unless Republicans for some reason voted en masse for it.

[vileplume]

Good. Agree. Strike out Indiana. North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio are more, then enough, by itself.

Well Pennsylvania has been rightly corrected by the courts, ditto Virginia. North Carolina is about to be redrawn too leaving Ohio the main state left with a highly egregious Republican Gerrymander (well Texas too but demographic and political changes are about to turn that into a dummymander so the GOP is about to reap what they sowed anyway without they intervention of the courts). So to be fair the courts should also step in to force the likes of Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts (I never hear this one mentioned but the districts there are really bad) to redraw their districts in a sensible way too.

Hopefully the courts will soon rule all gerrymandering illegal and mandate the use of non-partisan commissions like they have in most other countries with specific set goals such as keeping counties, municipalities and communities of interest as intact as possible.

[smoltchanov]

Good. Agree. Strike out Indiana. North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio are more, then enough, by itself.

Well Pennsylvania has been rightly corrected by the courts, ditto Virginia. North Carolina is about to be redrawn too leaving Ohio the main state left with a highly egregious Republican Gerrymander (well Texas too but demographic and political changes are about to turn that into a dummymander so the GOP is about to reap what they sowed anyway without they intervention of the courts). So to be fair the courts should also step in to force the likes of Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts (I never hear this one mentioned but the districts there are really bad) to redraw their districts in a sensible way too.

Hopefully the courts will soon rule all gerrymandering illegal and mandate the use of non-partisan commissions like they have in most other countries with specific set goals such as keeping counties, municipalities and communities of interest as intact as possible.

Absolutely agree.

[Zaybay]

Good. Agree. Strike out Indiana. North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio are more, then enough, by itself.

Well Pennsylvania has been rightly corrected by the courts, ditto Virginia. North Carolina is about to be redrawn too leaving Ohio the main state left with a highly egregious Republican Gerrymander (well Texas too but demographic and political changes are about to turn that into a dummymander so the GOP is about to reap what they sowed anyway without they intervention of the courts). So to be fair the courts should also step in to force the likes of Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts (I never hear this one mentioned but the districts there are really bad) to redraw their districts in a sensible way too.

Hopefully the courts will soon rule all gerrymandering illegal and mandate the use of non-partisan commissions like they have in most other countries with specific set goals such as keeping counties, municipalities and communities of interest as intact as possible.

The reason why nobody ever talks about Massachusetts is because a fair map would produce the exact same result as the current map. The only likely difference between the current map and a nonpartisan one would be that two of the seats would be competitive, but Republicans would still have a great deal of difficulty winning.

Much of the court challenges have been issued by groups affiliated with the major parties and have focused on how these congressional maps have drawn out one voice or the other(Democrats targeting PA and NC, Republicans targeting MD), so MA being mostly ignored makes sense.

MD and IL are rather simple partisan cases, the Ds have more seats than a fair map would produce, so the GOP and fair map groups target them. It should be noted, though, that the amount of seats that the Ds would lose with fair maps(about 2 from IL and 1 from MD) is easily countered just by putting a fair map in OH(2-4 additional seats).

[Nyvin]

I mean, you could clean up the line between CT-1 and CT-5  a little, but that is SOOO minor compared to what you see elsewhere in the country.  

[The Free North]

I mean, you could clean up the line between CT-1 and CT-5  a little, but that is SOOO minor compared to what you see elsewhere in the country.  

Pretty much this.

Overall its hard to call the current map a gerrymander. It doesnt help the Rs but it's not really drawn to help the Dems in any sort of way because they dont really need it.

[Skill and Chance]

I mean, you could clean up the line between CT-1 and CT-5  a little, but that is SOOO minor compared to what you see elsewhere in the country.  

Pretty much this.

Overall its hard to call the current map a gerrymander. It doesnt help the Rs but it's not really drawn to help the Dems in any sort of way because they dont really need it.

It's not an intentional gerrymander anyway.  The map was drawn by the state courts after the legislature deadlocked.  Dems controlled the legislature, but, as someone else here mentioned, they did not have the required 2/3rds majority to pass their map (the last time one party had 2/3rds control during redistricting was the GOP in 1921).  The current map was intended to be a least change map from the 2002 lines.