What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
That's a lot of sloganeering jammed into just twenty-seven words. Paranoia Chamber at work here!
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's not paranoid to point out that the gerrymandering is "better" (as in more effective) than ever. It's hardly just one party doing it, though. In my state the Dems have effectively disenfranchised about a third of all Republican voters in House districts.

I've read that even if we had non-partisan districts drawn there would still be more safe seats now because people are self-segregating. That's depressing, but I still believe we can fight the trend somewhat with rational modeling of districts.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
7-3? What, is a new Republican president going to add a seat? Only time I recall anyone tried that is FDR, and it didn't fly. You really are part of the Paranoid Chamber.
Click to expand...
FDR is just the last one to propose it. The SCOTUS was originally set for six, though only five members were present for the first handful of months (the sixth justice being delayed in taking his seat for reasons I don't know).
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

ScoobyDoo said:
Fine 6-3. I'm the paranoid one yet I'm not the one who goes nuts over a typo. Go figure.
Click to expand...
I figured you meant 7-2.

Ages of current justices in 2023 (within a two-term 2016 pres' tenure):

90 Ginsburg
87 Scalia
87 Kennedy
85 Breyer
...
75 Thomas
73 Alito
69 Sotomayor
68 Roberts
63 Kagan

Pretty good odds that all four of the older justices will be off the Court by then. That's the difference between 5-4 D and 7-2 R.

Elections have consequences.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
To be fair, it's not paranoid to point out that the gerrymandering is "better" (as in more effective) than ever. It's hardly just one party doing it, though. In my state the Dems have effectively disenfranchised about a third of all Republican voters in House districts.

I've read that even if we had non-partisan districts drawn there would still be more safe seats now because people are self-segregating. That's depressing, but I still believe we can fight the trend somewhat with rational modeling of districts.
Click to expand...
At least you admit gerrymandering cuts both ways, unlike the hardcore members of the Paranoia Chamber around here. There certainly are some totally ridiculous districts out there in places, the tough nut to crack is how to draw reasonable districts or more directly who would there be to draw reasonable districts, as most folks interested in this are of course highly partisan. It's not like you still can't play a lot of games with moving people around amongst districts and still have them look halfway decent.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
the tough nut to crack is how to draw reasonable districts or more directly who would there be to draw reasonable districts, as most folks interested in this are of course highly partisan.
Click to expand...

Gotta take the power away from the parties, and thus away from the stat legs. Since the drawings already wind up in the courts anyway, maybe just put it under the DOJ, or at least the FEC. This is one of those toys that legislators will never give up willingly and will have to be forced to give up practically at gunpoint.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
At least you admit gerrymandering cuts both ways, unlike the hardcore members of the Paranoia Chamber around here. There certainly are some totally ridiculous districts out there in places, the tough nut to crack is how to draw reasonable districts or more directly who would there be to draw reasonable districts, as most folks interested in this are of course highly partisan. It's not like you still can't play a lot of games with moving people around amongst districts and still have them look halfway decent.
Click to expand...

The solution is simple and already being employed in several states. Non partisan redistricting commissions. CA has done this as well as your own state (over the objections of the Gov I might add). FL passed a version saying that incumbent protection can't be the basis of drawing the lines and several districts are in flux now thanks to a lawsuit.

In fact, this is more simple than it appears. IIRC about a dozen states have some form of this law on the books. Beyond that non-partisan redistricting is essentually meaningless in one or two seat states (off the top of my head ME, NH, VT, RI, DE, WY, ID, MT, AK, HI, ND, SD). So half the states aren't an issue.

That means the rest, and particularly larger states like TX, NY, IL, OH, MI, WI, WA, VA, NC need to get on board and let the chips fall where they may as far as who benefits or not.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Rover said:
The solution is simple and already being employed in several states. Non partisan redistricting commissions. CA has done this as well as your own state (over the objections of the Gov I might add). FL passed a version saying that incumbent protection can't be the basis of drawing the lines and several districts are in flux now thanks to a lawsuit.

In fact, this is more simple than it appears. IIRC about a dozen states have some form of this law on the books. Beyond that non-partisan redistricting is essentually meaningless in one or two seat states (off the top of my head ME, NH, VT, RI, DE, WY, ID, MT, AK, HI, ND, SD). So half the states aren't an issue.

That means the rest, and particularly larger states like TX, NY, IL, OH, MI, WI, WA, VA, NC need to get on board and let the chips fall where they may as far as who benefits or not.
Click to expand...

The problem I have heard with this is that although "non-partisan" the boards still bend over backwards to shore up existing incumbency, so you wind up with, say, an even split of ridiculously gerrymandered districts. I'd prefer math. Math doesn't care about an incumbent's need to keep his mistress happy.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
The problem I have heard with this is that although "non-partisan" the boards still bend over backwards to shore up existing incumbency, so you wind up with, say, an even split of ridiculously gerrymandered districts. I'd prefer math. Math doesn't care about an incumbent's need to keep his mistress happy.
Click to expand...

There was such a map for Maryland that had nice square districts. Unfortunately the state house and legislature rejected it for their more "creative" approach. And I got to admit, they got an "A" for creativity.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
The problem I have heard with this is that although "non-partisan" the boards still bend over backwards to shore up existing incumbency, so you wind up with, say, an even split of ridiculously gerrymandered districts. I'd prefer math. Math doesn't care about an incumbent's need to keep his mistress happy.
Click to expand...

<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ALGxvO7xppA/UIhsn0iFsPI/AAAAAAAAFkY/6Ctk6tQZops/s1600/776px-Iowa_Congressional_Districts_with_Counties,_2012-2022_svg.jpg"></img>

Iowa's rules say you can't divide counties for federal districts, the populations must be within 1% of the mean for each district, and they must be contiguous.

They're drawn by the non-partisan legislative services agency and must be approved by the assembly and governor. The LSA draws up three maps but only presents one at a time for approval. If all three are rejected, the state supreme court settles the issue.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Rover said:
The solution is simple and already being employed in several states. Non partisan redistricting commissions. CA has done this as well as your own state (over the objections of the Gov I might add). FL passed a version saying that incumbent protection can't be the basis of drawing the lines and several districts are in flux now thanks to a lawsuit.

In fact, this is more simple than it appears. IIRC about a dozen states have some form of this law on the books. Beyond that non-partisan redistricting is essentually meaningless in one or two seat states (off the top of my head ME, NH, VT, RI, DE, WY, ID, MT, AK, HI, ND, SD). So half the states aren't an issue.

That means the rest, and particularly larger states like TX, NY, IL, OH, MI, WI, WA, VA, NC need to get on board and let the chips fall where they may as far as who benefits or not.
Click to expand...
How do you really do a non-partisan board though? We supposedly have one here in Arizona, but people are always unhappy (one side or the other) with what comes out. It consists of two people selected by the Dems, two selected by the Reps, and one independent. Meaning the one independent is enormously crucial in how things go. The independent person is selected by the other four on the board. This last go around, it turned out the independent that was selected had some Dem ties and predictably the Dems loved the districts that came out, while the Reps really disliked them, with multiple Rep incumbents put in the same districts and no Dem incumbents having that done, plus there were some odd things about how the board went about its business. Maybe there's a better way of doing it, but I don't see the "non-partisan" board necessarily coming up with districts that are a whole lot different than what you'd get through other processes.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
How do you really do a non-partisan board though? We supposedly have one here in Arizona, but people are always unhappy (one side or the other) with what comes out. It consists of two people selected by the Dems, two selected by the Reps, and one independent. Meaning the one independent is enormously crucial in how things go. The independent person is selected by the other four on the board. This last go around, it turned out the independent that was selected had some Dem ties and predictably the Dems loved the districts that came out, while the Reps really disliked them, with multiple Rep incumbents put in the same districts and no Dem incumbents having that done, plus there were some odd things about how the board went about its business. Maybe there's a better way of doing it, but I don't see the "non-partisan" board necessarily coming up with districts that are a whole lot different than what you'd get through other processes.
Click to expand...

Why lose 40 pounds when I would still be 10 pounds overweight?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

burd said:
Why lose 40 pounds when I would still be 10 pounds overweight?
Click to expand...
Because you can then lose the 10 other pounds and not be overweight? Or you can eat lots of ice cream and still not put the whole 40 back on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top