Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
How Michigan Turned Blue in '22--by ending gerrymandering
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JSRG" data-source="post: 76996808" data-attributes="member: 418772"><p>I said if a state is <em>uniformly</em> 52% Democrat/48% Republican (or let's go back to the original thing mentioned, 51% Democrat/49% Republican). Since it's uniform, that means no matter how you set up the districts, every district will be 51% Democrat and 49% Republican, so every election will go to a Democrat, giving them 100% representation.</p><p></p><p>In my original statement I did say "<em>fairly</em> uniform" and changed it to 52%/48%, as I figured that did give more of an opportunity to try to contort it into 52%/48% for the actual representatives (the 51/49 was changed to 52/48 for this to give it a better opportunity, but that may have made it more confusing). The point there was that you'd have to gerrymander if you wanted to make it proportional, as naturally drawn maps would be expected to result in a 100% win for Democrats.</p><p></p><p>But if we throw out the "fairly uniform" and go to straight up uniform as in the hypothetical in the first paragraph, then it means that, again, no matter how you divide it up, you end up with 100% Democrat victory even though they have only 52% of the vote.</p><p></p><p>This is an extreme example of course. My whole point is that "honestly" drawn maps can result in representation quite different from the overall proportional percentage. Now, obviously, many times marked differences in overall votes compared to how the representatives are divided <em>is</em> the result of gerrymandering. No doubt. But such differences can occur even in "honestly" drawn maps, as the example was used to show.</p><p></p><p>Thus the bottom line is that I don't think you can simply say "it's not fair because it doesn't match up with the proportional" because if that's the evaluation, then cut the middle man and just do proportional representation directly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JSRG, post: 76996808, member: 418772"] I said if a state is [I]uniformly[/I] 52% Democrat/48% Republican (or let's go back to the original thing mentioned, 51% Democrat/49% Republican). Since it's uniform, that means no matter how you set up the districts, every district will be 51% Democrat and 49% Republican, so every election will go to a Democrat, giving them 100% representation. In my original statement I did say "[I]fairly[/I] uniform" and changed it to 52%/48%, as I figured that did give more of an opportunity to try to contort it into 52%/48% for the actual representatives (the 51/49 was changed to 52/48 for this to give it a better opportunity, but that may have made it more confusing). The point there was that you'd have to gerrymander if you wanted to make it proportional, as naturally drawn maps would be expected to result in a 100% win for Democrats. But if we throw out the "fairly uniform" and go to straight up uniform as in the hypothetical in the first paragraph, then it means that, again, no matter how you divide it up, you end up with 100% Democrat victory even though they have only 52% of the vote. This is an extreme example of course. My whole point is that "honestly" drawn maps can result in representation quite different from the overall proportional percentage. Now, obviously, many times marked differences in overall votes compared to how the representatives are divided [I]is[/I] the result of gerrymandering. No doubt. But such differences can occur even in "honestly" drawn maps, as the example was used to show. Thus the bottom line is that I don't think you can simply say "it's not fair because it doesn't match up with the proportional" because if that's the evaluation, then cut the middle man and just do proportional representation directly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
How Michigan Turned Blue in '22--by ending gerrymandering
Top
Bottom