• 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!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

I didn't realize we were having this NC gerrymander discussion on two different threads. Let's just move it here.

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...


Yep. And NC can take it a step further because there are only two metro areas with more than then ~750K who should be in any district. So NC districts could be drawn without splitting up any counties that aren't in the Charlotte and Raleigh metro areas. The Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia MSA without SC splits almost perfectly 3 ways. The Raleigh-Cary MSA splits perfectly in half.

An algorithm that takes all that into consideration should net a few hundred combinations. Then just randomly pick one. If you want to get political, let each party veto 25% of the options and randomly choose between the remaining 50%.
 
The irony of the map that became law today is that Democrats removed the governor's veto power over it in 1990.

It's fucking disgusting that a state that is essentially split ideologically is potentially going to have an 11-3 or 10-4 tilt to the right simply because of boundaries drawn on a map.
 
It's more disgusting that Democrats could stop it with a 50-50 Senate but they refuse to do so.
 
Liquid Karma said:
The irony of the map that became law today is that Democrats removed the governor's veto power over it in 1990.

It's fucking disgusting that a state that is essentially split ideologically is potentially going to have an 11-3 or 10-4 tilt to the right simply because of boundaries drawn on a map.
Click to expand...

At the risk of pointing out a very important obvious fact that keeps getting missed, we don't elect Representatives based upon a function of the Statewide popular vote. I understand you guys are angry because you are not getting your way, but we still need to understand how the process actually works. We elect Congressmen on a district by district basis, so your biggest gripe really is irrelevant so long as we continue to do this on a district-by-district level.

One of the tenants I have been asking you all about is, "What is your criteria?" Everyone seems to say "Keep municipalities together." I get that, it makes sense. Watch what happens.

Plug that agreed-upon criteria into Birdman's magic calculator. If every living, breathing resident of Orange, Durham, Western Wake and North Chatham Counties (places that have infinitely more in common with each other than their neighboring, rural Counties) votes for the Democrat, and that person wins 100% of the votes in that district, they still only get one Representative. If more ideologically diverse areas of the State that are larger in surface area in order to match the population of the 15-501 bubble have a bunch of 54-45 races that come up for the Republicans, you're going to have a lopsided mosaic of races that shade red despite an aggregate total of votes. The only way to defeat that is to eschew the popular practice of keeping municipalities together and instead create meandering districts designed only to achieve a certain partisan outcome. There's a word for that practice.
 
I can empathize a little bit with the general concept that concentrated cities shouldn't get equal representation though. I mean california is a huge state, why should the folks who choose to live in this concentrated area of 3% of the actual area of CA (LA) get 25% of the say via population. It does seem to lay credence to the concept of the more local control, the better. People in cities choose to live in cities. People in burbs choose to live in the burbs. If the taxes can pay for the transit to let folks freely choose where they live, then why not cede more control locally? If it were up to me I'd be down to pay a huge tax to have armed guards protecting my property. I care less about funding schools as I have no kids. Given enough local control I'd imagine I'd be able to find my wheelhouse. But state wide funding prevents the perfect allocation of taxes/resources per individual. The downside being I don't like any of the people who probably want the same things as me.
 
Last edited:
Every person should get equal say, not every acre.
 
PhDeac said:
Every person should get equal say, not every acre.
Click to expand...

You picked an add type of race to raise this complaint about, since Congressional districts are the only federal races based upon population. Your vote is "most equal" to any other vote in the Country in your House race than any other contest, including the general election itself.
 
There should be proportionately more districts in cities and suburbs(where people live) and proportionately less districts in rural areas (where people don’t live). There ya go, problem solved.
 
WokeandBroke said:
You picked an add type of race to raise this complaint about, since Congressional districts are the only federal races based upon population. Your vote is "most equal" to any other vote in the Country in your House race than any other contest, including the general election itself.
Click to expand...

ed300ab454979c6c1284feb9ac7d2158.jpg
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
There should be proportionately more districts in cities and suburbs(where people live) and proportionately less districts in rural areas (where people don’t live). There ya go, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Good news for you, then, because 9 of the 13 current representatives list their home in the five largest metro areas of the State (and the 10th is G.K. Butterfield). You would have known this had you put down the talking points and simply read the thread.
 
David Price won his 800,000+ person District 332,421 to 161,298. You guys don't get to export those extra 170,000 votes to beat Richard Hudson in his district of 800,000+ people, or David Rouzer in his 800,000+ District. Hudson, Rouzer and Cawthorne reside in more ideologically diverse areas of the State. You guys live in your bubbles and this is the result.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Good news for you, then, because 9 of the 13 current representatives list their home in the five largest metro areas of the State (and the 10th is G.K. Butterfield). You would have known this had you put down the talking points and simply read the thread.
Click to expand...

The fact that their home may be in a city doesn't mean that they will represent the views of their fellow city residents. To the contrary, these districts are being drawn to dilute the influence and power of urban areas in favor of rural ones, which means that those representatives will represent the political views of the dominant rural areas, not the urban ones where they happen to have a house. In other words, if you live Guilford County, which is now heavily Democratic, your representatives are far more likely to represent and speak out for the views of the people of Ashe County, Lee County, and Cabarrus County than of Guilford County, which will - by design - make up only a minority of their voting base. It's very likely that at least two, if not all three, of the House districts into which Guilford will be placed will elect Republicans, and Guilford's majority of Democrats will have no one to speak for them or their views.
 
WokeandBroke said:
David Price won his 800,000+ person District 332,421 to 161,298. You guys don't get to export those extra 170,000 votes to beat Richard Hudson in his district of 800,000+ people, or David Rouzer in his 800,000+ District. Hudson, Rouzer and Cawthorne reside in more ideologically diverse areas of the State. You guys live in your bubbles and this is the result.
Click to expand...

lol you’re using a gerrymandered set of districts to make your point in favor of gerrymandering
 
"The only way to combat democrats winning elections due to demographic changes in population is to gerrymander. It's science. I get that it upsets you snowflakes but republicans deserve to be in control. There we are I guess. Sorry the truth hurts."
 
I guess Juice wants to raid neighboring 8th and 9th Districts (already represented by Republicans; LOL) to try to close a 20(!) point gap in a District bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, South Carolina and the only remaining Democrat rural district in the State.

I guess his plan is to turn that region from 3-1 to 4-0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
deaconson said:
"The only way to combat democrats winning elections due to demographic changes in population is to gerrymander. It's science. I get that it upsets you snowflakes but republicans deserve to be in control. There we are I guess. Sorry the truth hurts."
Click to expand...

Dems are losing ground with Hispanic voters. Do you all not read any data? Texas and Florida are turning redder.

It's not the job of District Drawers to walk-back your hateful and dismissive messaging to rural areas. They heard you, and they're telling you to go fuck yourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top