Is this one of those magic eye pictures where you see something in the noise? God. That is a dizzying slate of data laid out the way you have here. Perhaps a bar graph might be in order?
Shoulda seen it before I cleaned it up! Oy vey!!! Could definitely use some Tableau data visualization help.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Is this one of those magic eye pictures where you see something in the noise? God. That is a dizzying slate of data laid out the way you have here. Perhaps a bar graph might be in order?
I think the biggest takeaway is that Biden absolutely brought out the vote. We have no way of knowing if others would have done the same, but Trump got more votes out last time, and Biden still outdrew them in most every state.
Look at Dan Crenshaw's (R) district (TX-2) and how gerrymandered it is. It's still a problem.
I guess it depends on your definition of a problem. Sure, maps are drawn in a very partisan way, but if Dems keep winning the house, is it affecting anything?
I guess it depends on your definition of a problem. Sure, maps are drawn in a very partisan way, but if Dems keep winning the house, is it affecting anything?
It leads to partisanship, if your district is drawn so that you only have to appeal to your core voters it means you push both parties out to the extremes
I guess it depends on your definition of a problem. Sure, maps are drawn in a very partisan way, but if Dems keep winning the house, is it affecting anything?
It leads to partisanship, if your district is drawn so that you only have to appeal to your core voters it means you push both parties out to the extremes
Gerrymandering has the opposite effect. It distributes out from very partisan districts to distribute votes in closer districts where they are more needed. That's where it can backfire though. If you try to get too clever, and there is a shift one way or the other, you can lose the "sure thing" districts.
It's kind of fascinating that Trump is making so much money off of these stupid hard core supporters. Probably a lot of the same dummies that get hooked on the televangelists.
I agree it affects the house, but it hasn't had any affect on 2018 or 2020, and Trump/Trumpism/Tea Partism has changed the map enough to make some gerrymandering efforts backfire.
The other things you are describing aren't related to Gerrymandering. If I'm not mistaken Gerrymandering is artificially drawing and re-drawing districts to siphon off unneeded areas from very partisan congressional districts to districts that are much closer.
The Senate and the EC have been as they are forever, and even though they do give small, rural states a disproportional amount of power, it was not due to any recent partisan manipulation.
2020 not everyone is seated, so it's still hard to say.
vote share vs seat share seats for Dems
2018 +1 (big anti-trump enthusiasm anomaly)
2016 -11
2014 -17
2012 -19
2010 -9 (the year of the great gerrymander)
2008 +15 (GWB low approval anomaly)
2006 -3
2004 -9
2002 -2
2000 -3
1998 -4
Basically on average the Dems lose 6 seats per election due to gerrymander. The only to instances it came out in their favour you need a complete trainwreck of a republican presidency.
That said, I was somewhat to surprised to find no instances where the balance of power was tipped by seat distribution vs popular vote.
If they succeed it won't just be the end of democracy in the US, it will be the end of civilization. Millions will take the streets and Trump will order the military to take them on. It will be absolute anarchy. It is an absolutely terrifying thought.
I think a fair question at this point, and one that is germane to any discussion of a coup, is, does Trump have the military at this point? Obviously he is the Commander in Chief, but if he orders troops into the streets will the generals allow it?
My guess is no.
The Following User Says Thank You to blender For This Useful Post:
You need to explain a little more why that is a problem though. We have suburban counties all over the place with maps drawn like that around the city. Is there something common about that area? What should a properly drawn district look like? Should one district be drawn to include all the predominantly Black neighborhoods, or should their votes be diluted into a few white districts where they don't have much of a voice? If you answered the former, then you could very well have a map that looks like that.
I'm not arguing that Gerrymandering is not a thing. People in this thread are claiming it is a lot of things that it is not. At the moment, it's not hurting the Democrats at a national level in the house. It has no real effect on the Presidential election or Senate control.
It is also not an exclusively Republican thing. The Democrats definitely participate in it as well.
There's really no right way to draw these districts.
Our state government is now Democrat at all 3 levels, so they were finally able to change the way are districts are drawn. To do so, Virginians voted on this ballot measure:
"Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission, consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth, that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor's involvement and to give the responsibility of drawing districts to the Supreme Court of Virginia if the redistricting commission fails to draw districts or the General Assembly fails to enact districts by certain deadlines?”"
It passed, and will supposedly make for some non-partisan drawn districts, but nobody really believes it will work and I don't believe that anyone who voted for or against it understood what they were voting for or against.
I think a fair question at this point, and one that is germane to any discussion of a coup, is, does Trump have the military at this point? Obviously he is the Commander in Chief, but if he orders troops into the streets will the generals allow it?
My guess is no.
I was coming from if Trump somehow steals the election and is sworn in for another term. He would then have control of the military. We already know homeland security has acted as his lapdogs before.
2020 not everyone is seated, so it's still hard to say.
vote share vs seat share seats for Dems
2018 +1 (big anti-trump enthusiasm anomaly)
2016 -11
2014 -17
2012 -19
2010 -9 (the year of the great gerrymander)
2008 +15 (GWB low approval anomaly)
2006 -3
2004 -9
2002 -2
2000 -3
1998 -4
Basically on average the Dems lose 6 seats per election due to gerrymander. The only to instances it came out in their favour you need a complete trainwreck of a republican presidency.
That said, I was somewhat to surprised to find no instances where the balance of power was tipped by seat distribution vs popular vote.
That doesn't prove Gerrymandering. You can only Gerrymander within your state. A lot of that discrepancy is the same issue as the EC and Senate. The small, rural states get disproportionate amount of seats.
Another thing that gerrymanders districts is the majority minority districts required by the voting rights act. This ensures minority voices are represented but also ensures districts are creates that concentrate their voting power.
The explanation is lacking a little bit, but the John Oliver video above might help.
The issue isn't that the district is shaped funny, it is the was it extends into the inner city to nullify the votes of the people there. Not to minimize the history of gerrymandering, but like all things political these days they brought a gun to a nerf fight and shot their opponent in the back of the head.
It's asymmetrical warfare. And while not against the law, its against the spirit of the law (and fairly hypocritical from the "originalist" camp).
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I was coming from if Trump somehow steals the election and is sworn in for another term. He would then have control of the military. We already know homeland security has acted as his lapdogs before.
Sorry, didn't quite get that. Still, I have a hard time believing Trump is going to steal this without needing to resort to force. If he gets sworn in in January all bets are off, but despite the levels of concern being expressed and some of explanations of America's arcane constitutional processes there is a tremendous amount of momentum against him.
The Following User Says Thank You to blender For This Useful Post:
Apparently there is a computer program some states use make the districts. You put the census data into the program and literally pick what groups of people you want to lock out for election purposes, then the program will draw the lines to best suit your objective.
I can't find an example, but I believe there are some districts that have enclaves in the middle of other districts. It's just completely whacked.
Edit: Ah crap, didn't even see that John Oliver video until now.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 11-10-2020 at 10:03 PM.
The explanation is lacking a little bit, but the John Oliver video above might help.
The issue isn't that the district is shaped funny, it is the was it extends into the inner city to nullify the votes of the people there. Not to minimize the history of gerrymandering, but like all things political these days they brought a gun to a nerf fight and shot their opponent in the back of the head.
It's asymmetrical warfare. And while not against the law, its against the spirit of the law (and fairly hypocritical from the "originalist" camp).
I get that, and that's exactly what Gerrymandering aims to do. My point is that Gerrymandering is being blamed for things it's not. Mainly that it doesn't directly affect the Presidential or Senate races, nor does it affect the current balance of power of the House.
It is actually much more pervasive in the balance of power in state level legislatures and that doesn't get talked about a lot.
I get that, and that's exactly what Gerrymandering aims to do. My point is that Gerrymandering is being blamed for things it's not. Mainly that it doesn't directly affect the Presidential or Senate races, nor does it affect the current balance of power of the House.
It is actually much more pervasive in the balance of power in state level legislatures and that doesn't get talked about a lot.
We can agree to agree.
But is shouldn't be minimized either.
District voting bases can affect voter turn out, so it's very hard to run alternative scenarios. (I've actually skipped provincial elections, because I don't feel they are contested here where every election is 65% - 20% - 15%... and I feel I skew pretty far into the engaged/informed column).
