US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9513

On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:

idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.)

On December 14 2017 03:40 raNazUra wrote:


Without trying to be cheeky, if you've ever had the math behind gerrymandering explained to you, equal-ish districts that lean toward you is precisely what you want, so that is, if anything, evidence *for* it.

Example: 30 people live in 6 districts, 5 people each. Let's say the population is 50/50, so 15 Rs and Ds. You'd expect each side to get 3 districts. But if I get to split it up, and I make the districts I win close and the ones you win blowouts, then it's not even close:

District 1: 3R 2D
District 2: 3R 2D
District 3: 3R 2D
District 4: 3R 2D
District 5: 3R 2D
District 6: 0R 5D

Result: 5 R districts and 1 D district, even though the population is split 50/50. So the map above, with close-ish districts with R victories and one blowout D district is precisely what I would want to see if I had been put in charge of gerrymandering a state.

On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:


It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats.

Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others.
"Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue).

The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation).

On December 14 2017 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe we can't agree where the line for gerrymandering is, but I'm sure we can all agree that in this case it's been crossed.

On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:

You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair.

On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:

You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair.

On December 14 2017 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:



Can you elaborate on what you mean by "undue"? I understand what you mean by saying if, for example, Seattle 100% determined all Washington representation.

But the idea that 100,000 urban folks should have the same representation as 10,000 rural is still a little silly. It shouldn't be equal. It should be skewed to make 10,000 not so powerless, but we need to keep in mind we are aiming to represent people here. Some counties, while very large, are mostly made up of cattle and other agricultural stuff. It is important to keep in mind that the goal is still to represent humans, not land. The Seattle issue is certainly an issue, but the solution is not to say these miniscule counties should get totally equal representation.

On December 14 2017 03:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:


If more than half your state by population is rural, then winning those districts will still get you more house representation.
How is that unfair?

On the eve of a Federal Communications Commission vote to repeal net neutrality rules, some congressional Republicans are suddenly pivoting against the Trump administration and joining the outcry against the move — just as a new poll shows the vast majority of GOP voters want the rules preserved.

In 2015, the FCC put in place strong net neutrality regulations, which prevent internet service providers from selectively blocking or throttling content by charging for paid prioritization or censoring politically critical content.

After President Donald Trump in April said he wanted the rules eliminated, his newly installed FCC commissioner Ajit Pai — a former lawyer for Verizon — began a process to repeal the rules. That process will culminate in a vote scheduled for Thursday.

Pai’s proposed FCC order would undo the Barack Obama administration’s 2015 Title II classification of ISPs as “common carriers” while simultaneously preventing states from issuing their own net neutrality rules. Pai has frequently claimed the unelected FCC commissioners should not be setting policy.

The repeal effort would be a boon to telecommunications corporations, who are among the biggest campaign donors to federal lawmakers. But Pai’s initiative has prompted a backlash among consumer groups and political groups across the ideological spectrum, who say the repeal would both jeopardize the free flow of information on the internet as well as innovation and competition online.

Much of the congressional opposition to the repeal has come from Democrats — but a new poll shows three out of four Republican voters oppose the Pai's proposal. As that opposition has swelled, high-profile Republican lawmakers are suddenly speaking out against the repeal in the final hours before the FCC vote.

Chief among the critics are U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman — a five-term incumbent who represents the kind of pivotal swing seat Republicans need to win to maintain their House majority. Coffman on Tuesday sent a letter to Pai demanding delay the FCC’s vote and allow Congress to pass permanent open internet legislation instead.

"The Internet has been and remains a transformative tool, and I am concerned that any action you make take to alter the rules under which it functions may well have significant unanticipated negative consequences," Coffman wrote to Pai. "Therefore, I urge you to delay your upcoming vote and provide Congress with the opportunity to hold hearings on the net neutrality issue and to pass permanent open Internet legislation."

Coffman’s break with the telecom industry lobby is particularly notable, considering that Comcast just shifted 1,000 jobs to his district last year, a move that normally cultivates political favor.

The night before Coffman sent his letter, Republican Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska also posted on Twitter that he asked Pai to “preserve the framework of net neutrality.”

Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, John Curtis of Utah, Dave Reichert of Washington and GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine have all recently expressed skepticism of Pai’s proposed order.

“We commend Rep. Mike Coffman and all the other Republicans who have opposed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to destroy net neutrality,” Pierce Stanley, technology fellow at Demand Progress said in a statement. “By opposing Pai’s plan, Republicans are demonstrating that they stand with their constituents, and not Comcast, when it comes to preserving an internet free from censorship and slow lanes. It’s time for all members of congress, Republican and Democrat alike, to join in the call for the FCC to cancel its Thursday vote to repeal net neutrality protections, which would be catastrophic for innovation and free expression.”

On December 14 2017 04:12 Sermokala wrote:

Thats not whats being argued. Can we at least agree that there is a practical issue where it would be a lot easier to do campaigning in Seattle then to campaign in rural areas? No ones asking for a 10:1 split on equal power people just don't want to be ignored like a lot of people even in this thread want rual people to be.

On December 14 2017 04:17 Danglars wrote:

Because rural areas lack population but still deserve representation ... instead of stupidly putting all voters in a basket and assigning based on popular vote percentage. A Democrat in small town farmland is not the same as a Democrat living in public housing working in a service industry. It’s by design reflective of areas instead of state populations.

On December 14 2017 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:



Can you elaborate on what you mean by "undue"? I understand what you mean by saying if, for example, Seattle 100% determined all Washington representation.

But the idea that 100,000 urban folks should have the same representation as 10,000 rural is still a little silly. It shouldn't be equal. It should be skewed to make 10,000 not so powerless, but we need to keep in mind we are aiming to represent people here. Some counties, while very large, are mostly made up of cattle and other agricultural stuff. It is important to keep in mind that the goal is still to represent humans, not land. The Seattle issue is certainly an issue, but the solution is not to say these miniscule counties should get totally equal representation.