• PA governor rejects the newly proposed congressional map by GOP
    17 replies, posted
[t]https://i.imgur.com/yyejZNU.png[/t] The proposed redrawing. [quote]Pennsylvania’s top court was set to lay out new congressional voting districts for the state after Democratic Governor Tom Wolf on Tuesday rejected a version drawn by Republican legislative leaders as unfairly skewed in their party’s favor.[/quote] Source: [url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-pennsylvania/pennsylvania-court-set-to-redraw-voting-maps-after-governor-veto-idUSKCN1FX2BM[/url] Reminder that PA's court has a democrat majority.
Wasn't the new map even more gerrymandered than the rejected one?
Looks a trillion times better than the current one. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Pennsylvania_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif/lossless-page1-1024px-Pennsylvania_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif.png[/t] Besides that 14th (is there a college town there?) and some possible funkiness near Philiadelphia seems decent to me. edit2: the rejected plan I mean edit: the state supreme court can redraw it if they don't accept the new plan, hope they don't gerrymander in favor of the dems. Would be a bit of schadenfreude or whatever but fair districts for both parties please.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Pennsylvania_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif/lossless-page1-1024px-Pennsylvania_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif.png[/t][t]https://i.imgur.com/yyejZNU.png[/t] The current districts are such a gerrymanded shitshow that literally anything would be an improvement, but that being said this isn't exactly the kind of dramatic improvement the courts were hoping for. While the most egregious examples (#6, #7) have been improved somewhat, the core of the gerrymandered districts is still intact. It looks like they mostly lopped off chunks of the more spaghettified districts and lumped them in with the "only slightly" gerrymandered districts to give the visual impression of improvement, but the favorable constituencies of Gerrymandered District A are still lumped in with the favorable constituencies of Gerrymandered District B. This is most evident in districts such as (former) #12, which looks to be split 50/50 between #3 and #18, and (former) #17, split between #10 and #15. Overall an improvement but not nearly good enough. Try again.
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53129712]Looks a trillion times better than the current one.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, "how it looks" doesn't really matter. Nice looking districts can still be very gerrymandered. [url]https://sites.duke.edu/quantifyinggerrymandering/2018/01/30/gerrymandering-is-not-about-oddly-shaped-districts/[/url] Quantifying gerrymandering is actually a very interesting mathematical problem that's being worked on heavily these days, it seems.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53129746]Unfortunately, "how it looks" doesn't really matter. Nice looking districts can still be very gerrymandered. [url]https://sites.duke.edu/quantifyinggerrymandering/2018/01/30/gerrymandering-is-not-about-oddly-shaped-districts/[/url] Quantifying gerrymandering is actually a very interesting mathematical problem that's being worked on heavily these days, it seems.[/QUOTE] By looks I guess I meant overall, guess my first impressions misled me and this isn't much better than the current. I'm glad governor Wolf didn't accept the plan then, guess the gop will try to do something similar in other states with bizarre districts and pretend they fixed it. Also thanks for the info
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53129746]Unfortunately, "how it looks" doesn't really matter. Nice looking districts can still be very gerrymandered. [url]https://sites.duke.edu/quantifyinggerrymandering/2018/01/30/gerrymandering-is-not-about-oddly-shaped-districts/[/url] Quantifying gerrymandering is actually a very interesting mathematical problem that's being worked on heavily these days, it seems.[/QUOTE] The reason for that is that the Supreme Court (and specifically, Justice Anthony Kennedy) essentially said in 2004 in [I]Vieth v. Jubelirer[/I] that yeah gerrymandering is some bullshit but we need a decent way of measuring it before we can do much about it, come back when you have something like that. So scientists have spent the past decade working on such measures, and a current case before the Court, [I]Gill v. Whitford[/I], is centered on the question of whether a new system called the "efficiency gap" can be used as the legal standard for gerrymandering. The Court will decide on that case in the coming months (Kennedy will be the swing vote) and they may say "yep seems legit. Anything which fails this test is unconstitutional", or they may say "nope, come up with something else"
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53129776]The reason for that is that the Supreme Court (and specifically, Justice Anthony Kennedy) essentially said in 2004 in [I]Vieth v. Jubelirer[/I] that yeah gerrymandering is some bullshit but we need a decent way of measuring it before we can do much about it, come back when you have something like that. So scientists have spent the past decade working on such measures, and a current case before the Court, [I]Gill v. Whitford[/I], is centered on the question of whether a new system called the "efficiency gap" can be used as the legal standard for gerrymandering. The Court will decide on that case in the coming months (Kennedy will be the swing vote) and they may say "yep seems legit. Anything which fails this test is unconstitutional", or they may say "nope, come up with something else"[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/19/is-the-supreme-court-allergic-to-math/?utm_term=.401cb68ba95b[/url] I think this is the good article I read a while back about the Supreme Court's distrust of mathematics, particularly in this instance. It's rather unfortunate. EDIT: No actually it was this one, to which the first one was a response: [url]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/[/url] I remember this Gorsuch quote especially. [quote]“It reminds me a little bit of my steak rub. I like some turmeric, I like a few other little ingredients, but I’m not going to tell you how much of each. And so what’s this court supposed to do? A pinch of this, a pinch of that?”[/quote]
If the ruling flips because Gorsuch is there instead of Garland, damn the gop. The only time I would ever vote for them is if the parties do another switch.
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53129805]If the ruling flips because Gorsuch is there instead of Garland, damn the gop. The only time I would ever vote for them is if the parties do another switch.[/QUOTE] We'll never know for sure where Garland would have come down on this case. If he and the other liberal justices had been in favour then yeah that would have done it, no matter what Anthony Kennedy decided
Another thing about the new district map is they admitted it was drawn to keep their seats. They specifically drew it so that no incumbents would have to run against each other.
Sorry this is off topic, but what if a SCOTUS justice dies like at the start of the next dem president's term and the gop still has a majority in congress? Blocking the appointment worked at the end of Obama's term, but would they really block it for four years?
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53129805]If the ruling flips because Gorsuch is there instead of Garland, damn the gop. The only time I would ever vote for them is if the parties do another switch.[/QUOTE] Worry not, because the US. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made their argument for overturning the maps based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, not the U.S. constitution, which the final word on would've been the U.S. Supreme Court's.. Thus, they argued that it wasn't in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on, an argument which the U.S. Supreme Court accepted when they refused Republican pleas to take it up. [quote="TheBorealis"]Sorry this is off topic, but what if a SCOTUS justice dies like at the start of the next dem president's term and the gop still has a majority in congress? Blocking the appointment worked at the end of Obama's term, but would they really block it for four years? [/quote] Depends on how destructive they would want to play it, but there's no reason they couldn't do so, if they had the Senate. One will note that Ted Cruz, towards the end of the 2016 election cycle, in fact, was already laying the groundwork for doing exactly that to the then empty Scalia seat had Hillary Clinton won the election. [quote="Zodiac"]"There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue, there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices, just recently Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job, that's a debate that we are going to have," [/quote] Now, that's just Ted Cruz, and he certainly occupies a more fringe element of Republican Senators, but it's certainly a possibility that as much would've happened: I don't see the right moderating itself anytime soon. [url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cruz-supreme-court-seat-vacancy-20161026-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3D&i10c.ua=1[/url]
[QUOTE=Maegord;53129934]Worry not, because the US. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made their argument for overturning the maps based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, not the U.S. constitution, which the final word on would've been the U.S. Supreme Court's.. Thus, they argued that it wasn't in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on, an argument which the U.S. Supreme Court accepted when they refused Republican pleas to take it up.[/QUOTE] I was talking about Gill v. Whitford, which will determine if districts will have to pass a system called the "efficiency gap" to be constitutional, which would reduce gerrymandering, like apparently a lot of decisions it will will be 5-4 in either way depending on how Justice Kennedy rules. And Garland is a moderate I believe instead of the conservative Gorsuch, if Garland was there it could be 5-4 even if Kennedy rules against using the test. edit: didn't see your additional content when I replied, thanks for the info
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53129946]I was talking about Gill v. Whitford, which will determine if districts will have to pass a system called the "efficiency gap" to be constitutional, which would reduce gerrymandering, like apparently a lot of decisions it will will be 5-4 in either way depending on how Justice Kennedy rules. And Garland is a moderate I believe instead of the conservative Gorsuch, if Garland was there it could be 5-4 even if Kennedy rules against using the test. edit: didn't see your additional content when I replied, thanks for the info[/QUOTE] on the one hand I hope the scotus does apply some mathematical standard, but on the other hand, the efficiency gap specifically as the only applicable standard is poor policy, its lazy and really is a better demonstration tool than a piece of proof, the real big problem is that the justices have ignored the complex rigor of mathematics and modeling for years, essentially saying if something is too complex or lacks a simple explanation then they won't rule on it even when there is clear evidence that can be derived from equally complex modeling it also goes for politicians too unfortunately, if you can do a thing complex enough they let you get away with it, like equifax, pharma, and more
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53129815]Another thing about the new district map is they admitted it was drawn to keep their seats. They specifically drew it so that no incumbents would have to run against each other.[/QUOTE] That's why bipartisan drawing of districts is a pretty terrible idea too. Just make districts less important with a mostly-proportional legislature lmao
Republicans won't be satisfied unless each different farming community has it's own district, and the Democrats won't be satisfied unless each city has four districts based on race and ethnic makeup. In otherwords, this is gonna be a long legal shitshow.
[thumb]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2018/02/dome.png[/thumb] :thinking:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.