All Activity

there's a lot about the roberts court i dont like (believe it or not), and their stances on campaign finance rules and election rules are two of the biggest. the inability of states to regulate their campaign finance rules has led to so many bad results, imo. i dont think theyve done anything to undermine the principle of one man/one vote, but ymmv. i dislike gerrymandering in all forms, and that includes racial gerrymandering. on principle alone, i dont see why people must vote for someone who has the same skin color as they do. i am perfectly capable of being represented by a black person (and am represented by minorities at all levels) and a black person is perfectly capable of being represented by a white person. however, that may be a particularly pollyanish view of mine. it will be interesting to see how things turn out. it may be that over time those districts turn out to be less republican or democrat than people think. but certainly not now.

You can generate a politically neutral algorithm to create districts weighting integrity of existing political boundaries against a drive for minimum total perimeters and you can create a fair system. The key is the perimeter value. When that becomes extreme that is the key to recognizing manipulation. Force a map with limited total perimeter and you will do away with the ability to do more than marginal manipulation.

You mean the Trump phones turned out to be a grift? NO ****ING WAY !

I don’t think an R+10 district will elect a Democrat. Regardless, what you presented here is already gerrymandered. What is Metro Detroit? Is it the CSA that includes Ann Arbor and Flint? Is it just the tri counties? The Detroit CSA is 53% of the population. At 5 reps, that’s only 38% of the representation. If you go MSA and only focus on Wayne-Oakland-Macomb, that’s about 43%. Now what do you do with Washtenaw and Genesee Counties? I’m assuming mid Michigan. I’m thinking Washtenaw, Genesse, Ingram and the Tri Cities make it more than 50/50. Where is the Thumb in all this? Mid Michigan? Where does mid end and west begin? What about the north? This still leaves it open to gerrymandering and Detroit is under represented.

It's a fundamental constitutional principle that every voter has equal rights, every vote must be given the same weight. If you *deliberately* manipulate districts to effectively vitiate some votes in favor or others that seems as straightforward a violation of the principle as I can imagine. Certainly one that should transcend any state's constitutional election management options. You could argue that the VRA already set a precedent by playing fast and loose with the principle and I wouldn't disagree with you. Sometimes no good deed goes unpunished.

true

Just about any district drawing can be construed as gerrymandering to some people. We also can argue that "independent commissions" can be guilty as well. Let's for example divide Michigan into regions with multiple members, giving candidates x number of seats proportionally. 1) Metro Detroit..5 seats. It's usually a 70/30 split Democrats to Republicans...it would come to a 4-1 Dem/Rep House spit 2) West Michigan (Grand Rapids area) 3 seats, 55-45 Republican/Democrat 2/1 Republican House Advantage... 3)Mid Michigan..(Lansing, Flint, Saginaw). 3 seats..usually a 50-50 Split depending on year. Winning party gets 2 seats Upper Michigan (Everything else) 2 seats. usually a 60/40 split. Depending on margin of victory winning party would get two seats (or split one seat each) Include third parties in the process if they receive a certain percentage of votes...everyone usually gets some representation. Tell me where the gerrymandering is here?

Yeah but at some point you run out of places to gerrymander. I think Texas gerrymander could backfire since they are relying on a realignment from Hispanics. I’m not sure how many more republican districts you squeeze from the Texas suburbs. Same with California, you’re likely to get more districts in the Central Valley.

Land has always outvoted people. We get it. Rule by the rich. We can toil in their underground sugar mines and have half a day off to worship their deity.

He didn't wear it at Toledo, or at Erie before he was rule 5'd either. He was wearing 14 with the Hens and no-one on the current 40 has it. Wore 27 before his Rule 5 but that's now Sweeney's.

According to B-R, 3 Tigers have worn it and I have no memories of the 2 who wore it last year wearing it... Matt Gage and Rafael Montero. The unique history of the number is why I don't like it. It's like Bull Durham and the fungus on shower shoes.

be careful what you wish for considering you'd need to increase florida and texas too.

Proportional representation would be nice.

What needs to happen is the house needs to be expanded. It hasn’t been expanded in over 100 years. The average district in California is 760k. Wyoming is 580k. The Wyoming rule would make sure all districts are the size of the smallest district. That would add 16 districts to California.

this seems like the only answer - you have to find a way to make swing and miss, and thus in turn pitching itself, a less important part of the game overall.

we can agree to disagree on that one, but there are plenty of folks who would make a similar argument to yours. the constitution gives the states the right to determine how their elections happen, which includes how their congressional reps get elected. this may come as a surprise to you, but politicians acted in bad faith in order to draw those districts! lol. what do you mean by "one man/one vote" argument?

apropos of nothing I call the space to the left of the pitcher and in front of 3rd base "Iowa" when doing infield drills for my softball teams. It was because I was trying to stop my pitchers from making wild throws to 1B when running in the opposite direction (i.e., toward 3B side foul territory). Basically, you might be better off if your momentum is taking you in that direction allowing the 3B to run in and make a throw. I drew a "box" to describe the place where I wanted the 3B to take over the ball and i did such a bad job drawing the box that it looked like the State of Iowa. So, my kids have called it Iowa ever since.

That still exposes it to gerrymandering.

Hence my argument for multi member ditricts, proportional voting...

we've argued about whether this SCOTUS is sane or not before, but there is such and easy straightforward one man/one vote argument to be made to outlawing any attempt to draw districts to favor outcomes of any kind that I don't see how SCOTUS can be defended on this issue at all. They made an ideological decision for bad government when there were easy good government options available to them that would not have required any objectionable legal gymnastics to have arrived at at all. These are terrible people and there is no way around it.

Illinois didn’t disarm themselves like California. Good for them.

got me curious so I checked Hungarian Origin (Orbán): It is a Hungarian form of the name Urban. It was historically used to denote an "educated man" or someone who lived in a town, rather than in the countryside. [1, 2, 3] Latin Roots: It stems from the Latin Urbanus, which carries connotations of being refined, cultured, and sophisticated due to its connection to city life. [1] Other Interpretations: Some sources suggest that in a Slavic context, the name can be associated with "eagle

Wild, so just because a state has 40% of one party doesn’t mean that 40% of the districts will be that party? To get to 8 red districts in Illinois, you’re probably going to have to do a little gerrymandering. Probably have to cut up the Chicago exurbs and pack Dems in Chicago.

iowa has a non-partisan commission that creates their map. theyve had that in place for 40 years.