• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

WokeandBroke said:
At the moment, I'm trying to convince myself you're really against gerrymandering. So, I'll ask again, did you object to the other map on my original post when it was the law? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Could you go over the math behind the first map please?…before I draw any conclusions.
 
birdman said:
Could you go over the math behind the first map please?…before I draw any conclusions.
Click to expand...

Gladly: the first map was good for your team. So far, the math has been zero (0) objections from you and 06 combined. Which is weird, given how much you guys pretend to hate gerrymandering.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Gladly: the first map was good for your team. So far, the math has been zero (0) objections from you and 06 combined. Which is weird, given how much you guys pretend to hate gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

Well, when you divide by zero the answer is alway infinity, so, seems like the objections are infinite.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Go back to the original post on the prior page. There are two maps there. Are they both gerrymandered?
Click to expand...

Oh ok. That’s different than zinging me about someone else’s post about rural urban divide or whatever.

What do you expect someone to say, that first map is not gerrymandered? GOTCHA! Of course it’s gerrymandered. I don’t have a record of my disagreement in 1993 since 30 years ago I was a child watching cartoons. Looking at it now, we can debate as to the DEGREE to which it’s gerrymandered as compared to the current maps but either way yes it is gerrymandered.

Everyone mocks angus for posting about Ralph Northam to excuse daily racism from Republicans. Your defense of the maps in this case is no different. So at the moment I don’t have any doubt as to whether you’re against gerrymandering.
 
06deacon said:
Oh ok. That’s different than zinging me about someone else’s post about rural urban divide or whatever.

What do you expect someone to say, that first map is not gerrymandered? GOTCHA! Of course it’s gerrymandered. I don’t have a record of my disagreement in 1993 since 30 years ago I was a child watching cartoons. Looking at it now, we can debate as to the DEGREE to which it’s gerrymandered as compared to the current maps but either way yes it is gerrymandered.

Everyone mocks angus for posting about Ralph Northam to excuse daily racism from Republicans. Your defense of the maps in this case is no different. So at the moment I don’t have any doubt as to whether you’re against gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

Tell me more about this nonpartisan map drawing committee. I am all ears.
 
Jh has trouble imagining that other people aren’t as desperately devoted to a party as he is. Since he’s willing to defend, obfuscate, excuse or whatabout literally anything a Republican does he sets up stupid gotcha traps assuming that others are forced to do the same. What a way to go through life.
 
06deacon said:
Jh has trouble imagining that other people aren’t as desperately devoted to a party as he is. Since he’s willing to defend, obfuscate, excuse or whatabout literally anything a Republican does he sets up stupid gotcha traps assuming that others are forced to do the same. What a way to go through life.
Click to expand...

TIL that asking you to be consistent on the very topic we're discussing in the State we're discussing it and point to real-world examples of the magical solutions you propose is a gotcha trap and a whatabout. You all take great comfort in lazy accusations.
 
And this dumbass loses again. To be here so long (after cowardly slinking away and crawling back with a new very secret identity impossible to figure out), and never get a W has got to sting:

https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6

"The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010."

Republicans know they have to cheat to win, JH knows this, we all know this -- whether through gerrymandering or changing voting laws. And they are very good at it. Don't fight it JH, embrace it -- it aligns with your own personality/outlook!

Dems need to get much better at it very quickly -- because there is only one party that wants to end gerrymandering for everyone, right JH? Doesn't that seem fair, JH? Do you know which party that is, JH?
 
Last edited:
I didn’t propose any magical solutions. Far as I can tell from my own like 4 posts on this thread I’ve been consistent too. I had a simple point. You don’t care how obviously gerrymandered the maps are because they benefit your team and you like the way they are. Deflect all you want, blame me all you want but that’s it.

This is why it’s entertaining sometimes tk. The guy cannot straight up acknowledge the obvious excesses of his party
 
of course the first map is gerry mandered. districts shouldn't looks like lightning bolts or letters of the alphabet.
 
Shooshmoo said:
And this dumbass loses again. To be here so long (after cowardly slinking away and crawling back with a new very secret identity impossible to figure out), and never get a W has got to sting:

https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6

"The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010."

Republicans know they have to cheat to win, JH knows this, we all know this -- whether through gerrymandering or changing voting laws. And they are very good at it. Don't fight it JH, embrace it -- it aligns with your own personality/outlook!

Dems need to get much better at it very quickly -- because there is only one party that wants to end gerrymandering for everyone, right JH? Doesn't that seem fair, JH? Do you know which party that is, JH?
Click to expand...

What happened here?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/illinois-democrats-gerrymander.html
 
As a recall, the first map was drawn as a result of a court order requiring minority majority representation for districts that matched the minority population % in the state.

I am not a fan of gerrymandering period. It is particularly odious when it skews the political wishes of the constituents outside of any reasonable standard deviation from how they vote as a state. It is odious when either side does it and the means exist to ensure that it doesn't happen at all.
 
I saw an interesting solution that the guy who posted those maps on twitter proposed.

Majority draws map and can freeze one district.
Minority draws map with frozen district and can freeze another district.
back and forth until map is drawn.
 
ChrisL68 said:
As a recall, the first map was drawn as a result of a court order requiring minority majority representation for districts that matched the minority population % in the state.

I am not a fan of gerrymandering period. It is particularly odious when it skews the political wishes of the constituents outside of any reasonable standard deviation from how they vote as a state. It is odious when either side does it and the means exist to ensure that it doesn't happen at all.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can be the one to tell me how. Why wouldn't existing political boundaries (drawn decades and sometimes centuries ago, and thus immune from temporary transfers of power) be the starting point? At least everyone knows where the fault lines are and that they can't be moved to suit a particular outcome.

If you think that there is such a thing as an objective, bipartisan commission that is going to draw these lines down the middle, I've got 400 years of evidence to the contrary. That's just not reality.
 
Just write a a spatial optimization algorithm.

1) maximize population evenness in districts
2) minimize dividing municipalities and counties
3) constrained by the number of districts needed

...and you're done. The parameters are there for everyone to see and argue about, but there is no need for nonpartisan committees, no need for partisan back and forth and no need for expensive lawsuits.
 
birdman said:
Just write a a spatial optimization algorithm.

1) maximize population evenness in districts
2) minimize dividing municipalities and counties
3) constrained by the number of districts needed

...and you're done. The parameters are there for everyone to see and argue about, but there is no need for nonpartisan committees, no need for partisan back and forth and no need for expensive lawsuits.
Click to expand...

So this is interesting. You've made no accounting for how the State votes as a whole (i.e., the primary objection to the maps passed this week). I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't but these districts pretty much do that (geographic boundaries used whenever possible, equally-populated districts), and lead to their foreseeable result that has led to even more tears from Shoo et al.

My point is the computer map using the criteria might not be far off from what's been proposed, or at least a close cousin in terms of where the lines fall. Of course, you're inserting the randomness of where the computer draws the lines versus partisans in a system, so maybe a lottery effect is what you're going for? We all agree to what the computer says, and nobody controls the computer?
 
WokeandBroke said:
Maybe you can be the one to tell me how. Why wouldn't existing political boundaries (drawn decades and sometimes centuries ago, and thus immune from temporary transfers of power) be the starting point? At least everyone knows where the fault lines are and that they can't be moved to suit a particular outcome.

If you think that there is such a thing as an objective, bipartisan commission that is going to draw these lines down the middle, I've got 400 years of evidence to the contrary. That's just not reality.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of solutions and states have enacted them and those states have representation that corresponds with the total vote in the state. You're not interested in them because you want to have a political advantage from drawing gerrymandered districts. Why don't you just admit it?
 
WokeandBroke said:
So this is interesting. You've made no accounting for how the State votes as a whole (i.e., the primary objection to the maps passed this week). I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't but these districts pretty much do that (geographic boundaries used whenever possible, equally-populated districts), and lead to their foreseeable result that has led to even more tears from Shoo et al.

My point is the computer map using the criteria might not be far off from what's been proposed, or at least a close cousin in terms of where the lines fall. Of course, you're inserting the randomness of where the computer draws the lines versus partisans in a system, so maybe a lottery effect is what you're going for? We all agree to what the computer says, and nobody controls the computer?
Click to expand...

I do not believe that human politicians, that stand to massively benefit from the outcome, could do the same job as a computer in an unbiased fashion. E.g., "Geographic boundaries used when ever possible" is highly likely to be violated when a human draws the map.
 
birdman said:
I do not believe that human politicians, that stand to massively benefit from the outcome, could do the same job as a computer in an unbiased fashion. E.g., "Geographic boundaries used when ever possible" is highly likely to be violated when a human draws the map.
Click to expand...

There are always hidden objectives when people do the optimization in their heads vs a computer algorithm, and those objectives are opaque, leaving the result open to bickering and complaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top