Biden's America

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

We should.  But gerrymandering has nothing to do with a persons right to vote like another person said. 

OK...so let's move on from that little spat.

 

How do we stop gerrymandering no matter who is doing it?

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

We should.  But gerrymandering has nothing to do with a persons right to vote like another person said. 

 

This is what you do. You seize on a technicality and use it to avoid a much less comfortable reality. 

 

People will still have the right to vote (yay you!) but gerrymandering insures that government representation -- the purpose of voting -- will be artificially skewed to achieve partisan results. 

 

So yes, you will have the "right" to vote. But your vote will have been rendered as powerless as possible. Which is not what "rights" are about. As you surely know.

[Archy1221]

38 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

This is what you do. You seize on a technicality and use it to avoid a much less comfortable reality. 

 

People will still have the right to vote (yay you!) but gerrymandering insures that government representation -- the purpose of voting -- will be artificially skewed to achieve partisan results. 

 

So yes, you will have the "right" to vote. But your vote will have been rendered as powerless as possible. Which is not what "rights" are about. As you surely know.

It’s not a technicality, it’s an actual fact.  This is what you do, pretend facts don’t exist.  
 

People who are eligible do have the right to vote (yay, everyone!) but Any Democrat vote in Western KS is as powerless as the most gerrymandered district in America.  Any Republican vote in deep blue election areas (districted by non partisan committees) is as powerless as the most gerrymandered district in America.  Any Republican vote for statewide federal office in NY is completely powerless.  As you surely know.
 

We all know what gerrymandering is designed to do.  Yet it has nothing to do with actual voting rights.  

[nic]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I really don't care who started it 200 years ago.  Are about now and moving forward.  

I believe this is a major issue that needs resolved.  Problem is, the voters aren't putting pressure on elected officials that benefit from this crap.

I think you missed the end where I said it should be done by a neutral board. I think some states use that approach.

[Lorewarn]

24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We all know what gerrymandering is designed to do.  Yet it has nothing to do with actual voting rights.  

 

Cool, we also all know what NM was getting at even though the language wouldn't get an A on her final exam. 

 

Now let's talk about it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s not a technicality, it’s an actual fact.  This is what you do, pretend facts don’t exist.  
 

People who are eligible do have the right to vote (yay, everyone!) but Any Democrat vote in Western KS is as powerless as the most gerrymandered district in America.  Any Republican vote in deep blue election areas (districted by non partisan committees) is as powerless as the most gerrymandered district in America.  Any Republican vote for statewide federal office in NY is completely powerless.  As you surely know.
 

We all know what gerrymandering is designed to do.  Yet it has nothing to do with actual voting rights.  

 

Why are you doubling down?

 

I believe everyone has conceded the "actual fact" and wants to move over to the grown-ups table, where we're talking about how the "powerlessness" of your vote would obviously affect the "right" of your vote to count. 

 

And you must also know that we're not talking about voting in a state where your party is outnumbered. We're talking about gerrymandering, a system that allows a ruling party to subvert the will of the people --- even if it means the minority rules. 

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Why are you doubling down?

 

I believe everyone has conceded the "actual fact" and wants to move over to the grown-ups table, where we're talking about how the "powerlessness" of your vote would obviously affect the "right" of your vote to count. 

 

And you must also know that we're not talking about voting in a state where your party is outnumbered. We're talking about gerrymandering, a system that allows a ruling party to subvert the will of the people --- even if it means the minority rules. 

 

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Why are you doubling down?

 

I believe everyone has conceded the "actual fact" and wants to move over to the grown-ups table, where we're talking about how the "powerlessness" of your vote would obviously affect the "right" of your vote to count. 

 

And you must also know that we're not talking about voting in a state where your party is outnumbered. We're talking about gerrymandering, a system that allows a ruling party to subvert the will of the people --- even if it means the minority rules. 

Hurling insults doesn’t help your point

 

You calling it a technicality and me letting you know it’s a fact isn’t really doubling down but more so letting you know it’s actually a fact that gerrymandering does not impinge on someone’s right to vote as was stated and tried to be restated a few more times. 
 

it seems everyone on this board is on the same page with how wrong gerrymandering is even with your insulting posts.   It’s just not voting right infringing.  

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Why are you doubling down?

It's what Archy does to try to distract from and derail the actual discussion.

[Archy1221]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's what Archy does to try to distract from and derail the actual discussion.

LOL.  Boy, you haven’t kept up with the discussion very well.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

31 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Hurling insults doesn’t help your point

 

You calling it a technicality and me letting you know it’s a fact isn’t really doubling down but more so letting you know it’s actually a fact that gerrymandering does not impinge on someone’s right to vote as was stated and tried to be restated a few more times. 
 

it seems everyone on this board is on the same page with how wrong gerrymandering is even with your insulting posts.   It’s just not voting right infringing.  

 

It seems everyone on this board is also on the same page with how you're avoiding the pertinent issue by using increasingly tortured semantics. 

 

It wouldn't be such a big deal if you didn't do this all the time. 

 

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Cool, we also all know what NM was getting at even though the language wouldn't get an A on her final exam. 

 

Now let's talk about it.

In the past on this message board, I have thought that a non-partisan commission (appointed by who is the question) is a good idea.  I’ve also said no more than a certain amount of border lines should be a qualifier to make it a legitimate district.   Not sure what that number should be, but the districts with 15 lines and cutouts isn’t what is intended.  
 

your turn to talk.  

[NM11046]

3 hours ago, nic said:

I think you missed the end where I said it should be done by a neutral board. I think some states use that approach.

How exactly would we determine neutral?  I used to think that was the judicial system but that's been pretty much blown up now.

 

Could it be done simply on population beginning with county lines as a start?  Seems like there would be similar values and needs in most counties of x size (when you get to someplace like Lincoln & Omaha and other more metro areas that's where I think lines get drawn cutting up county)

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It seems everyone on this board is also on the same page with how you're avoiding the pertinent issue by using increasingly tortured semantics. 

 

It wouldn't be such a big deal if you didn't do this all the time. 

 

 

 

 

It seems you are incorrect with your statement in paragraph one.  
 

Along with paragraph two.  A clean sweep for ya.  

[Lorewarn]

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

it seems everyone on this board is on the same page with how wrong gerrymandering is even with your insulting posts.   It’s just not voting right infringing.  

 

We were all on the same page two thread pages ago, before all of these:

 

On 12/20/2021 at 3:44 PM, Archy1221 said:

Just so you are aware, gerrymandering does not impact someone s ability to vote.  

 

23 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Ummmm do you not know what you posted?  it’s below.  How is that insulting you to point out that it is an incorrect statement?  

 

23 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Pointing out a flawed statement isnt really a game and not sure what the problem is but thanks for the luck I guess.  

 

20 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Who’s right to vote will be impacted by gerrymandering?   Who will NOT be able to vote who previously could vote?  Pretty simple question.   

 

19 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t think I got my question answered yet, so why would I answer one?  

 

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

We should.  But gerrymandering has nothing to do with a persons right to vote like another person said. 

 

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s not a technicality, it’s an actual fact.  This is what you do, pretend facts don’t exist.  
 

We all know what gerrymandering is designed to do.  Yet it has nothing to do with actual voting rights.  

  

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

How exactly would we determine neutral?  I used to think that was the judicial system but that's been pretty much blown up now.

 

Could it be done simply on population beginning with county lines as a start?  Seems like there would be similar values and needs in most counties of x size (when you get to someplace like Lincoln & Omaha and other more metro areas that's where I think lines get drawn cutting up county)

 

I spent a little bit of time this afternoon looking into theoretical solutions to fix gerrymandering, as I honestly have never looked nearly as far into solutions as I have into the problem.

 

One way to do it is by embracing algorithmic based decision making. I don't know how legislators would ever agree on what factors and areas of interest are emphasized, but our ability to create an algorithm that works towards that intended purpose is entirely possible, and personally I think there's a compelling argument that the only way humanity will survive going into the near future is to embrace building our systems with good integration of math and AI. Seems impossible to get people on board though.

 

I think the most realistic solution is to embrace A. ranked-choice proportional representation and B. bigger districts (less boundaries to manipulate/pack/crack, and more population diversity inside each).

[RedDenver]

22 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

We were all on the same page two thread pages ago, before all of these:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

I spent a little bit of time this afternoon looking into theoretical solutions to fix gerrymandering, as I honestly have never looked nearly as far into solutions as I have into the problem.

 

One way to do it is by embracing algorithmic based decision making. I don't know how legislators would ever agree on what factors and areas of interest are emphasized, but our ability to create an algorithm that works towards that intended purpose is entirely possible, and personally I think there's a compelling argument that the only way humanity will survive going into the near future is to embrace building our systems with good integration of math and AI. Seems impossible to get people on board though.

You don't need AI. Just algorithms that can produce compact areas (minimize the ratio of perimeter to area) with equal population numbers in each area.

 

22 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

I think the most realistic solution is to embrace A. ranked-choice proportional representation and B. bigger districts (less boundaries to manipulate/pack/crack, and more population diversity inside each).

The number of districts for a state depends on it's population and not it's geography, so there's not really a way to make bigger districts without creating districts with too many people in them.