Surpreme? Somebody fix the title please.
What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
21–30 of 97 posts
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#22A proportional representation voting system would also largely solve the gerrymandering problem (no district would be dominated by a single party anymore so exploiting the gerrymandering system wouldn't help much), along with having many other benefits for democracy: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation > They complied with the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement That line is interesting. How is th…
It's a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of voting systems reminds me of another modification to voting that I sometimes think might be reasonable: weighting votes based on voter age, with the weight starting off low for the youngest voters and increasing to a peak, and then dropping off again. What brought this on was thinking about the brexit vote over in the UK, which from what I read had very different outcome…
why does it start off low for the youngest?
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#23Re-posting my comment on Math Professor Fighting Gerrymandering with Geometry | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252 4 months ago: [...] a need for expert witnesses who understand the mathematical concepts applicable to gerrymandering. To meet that need, she’s spearheaded the creation of a five-day summer program at Tufts [the first in a series of regional trainings] that aims to train mathematicians to do j…
To rephrase this a little more concisely: SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues). There are 4 solid liberal votes and 4 solid conservative votes and Kennedy in the middle. Kennedy indicated in a ruling a few years ago that in theory he's uncomfortable with gerrymandering and might be open to striking them down, but apart from "I know it when I see it" he doesn't know a neutra…
> SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues).
I think this is a little bit misleading. Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous.
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#24This is an interesting article, but the headline is deceptive. The article doesn't answer that question it poses. The reason the Supreme Court granted cert is because the court below, which in this case was a special 3 judge district court panel whose opinions skip the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the challengers. If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would…
That's the procedural reason -- the case ended up in the SC because the lower court sent it up the chain, but that's still not an explanation for why they chose to accept it. As far as I know, they still had the option to refuse it.
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many districts which aren't compact have been created as majority-minority districts, to prevent disenfranchisement of racial minorities. [citation needed] I have seen many examples of horribly shaped districts, but all of them were done for partisan advantage. I would love it if you 1. Give an example of a majority minority district that is horribly shaped explicitly to accommodate the VRA. 2. Give citation for st…
Some of the ugliest looking district ducklings are beautiful swans in the eyes of the courts. For example, the Illinois 4th Congressional District drawn in the 2000's decade is often called the "earmuff" district for obvious reasons. The western portion of this district actually travels along the northbound lane of Interstate 294! But, this district has a very important purpose. It was initially created in the 1990s…
But isn't that gerrymandering for democrats instead of republicans? I am open to the idea that districts could be drawn based on more than geography, but to me this just sounds like "helpful" gerrymandering simply because it assists the democrats instead of the republicans.
There's no reason for congressional districts to be based on race, IMO.
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the ugliest looking district ducklings are beautiful swans in the eyes of the courts. For example, the Illinois 4th Congressional District drawn in the 2000's decade is often called the "earmuff" district for obvious reasons. The western portion of this district actually travels along the northbound lane of Interstate 294! But, this district has a very important purpose. It was initially created in the 1990s…
But isn't that gerrymandering for democrats instead of republicans? I am open to the idea that districts could be drawn based on more than geography, but to me this just sounds like "helpful" gerrymandering simply because it assists the democrats instead of the republicans. There's no reason for congressional districts to be based on race, IMO.
You could argue that one race votes for one party over another, but the VRA goal was to ensure minority representation, regardless of the party affiliation. Full Stop.
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#27A proportional representation voting system would also largely solve the gerrymandering problem (no district would be dominated by a single party anymore so exploiting the gerrymandering system wouldn't help much), along with having many other benefits for democracy: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation > They complied with the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement That line is interesting. How is th…
It's a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of voting systems reminds me of another modification to voting that I sometimes think might be reasonable: weighting votes based on voter age, with the weight starting off low for the youngest voters and increasing to a peak, and then dropping off again. What brought this on was thinking about the brexit vote over in the UK, which from what I read had very different outcome…
I don't think it's unreasonable for voters over a certain age to have restrictions put on their voting. My grandfather died at 94 and for the last ten years of his life he was extremely misinformed, and I don't mean just because he voted in a way that I wouldn't, or got his news elsewhere. He lost the ability to properly understand news from the television/newspaper; he would frequently ask my family if we had heard of some story and then provide a wildly inaccurate summary of it, only loosely related. This was mostly due to the progression of Alzheimer's. He was still able to vote during this time and I think even participated in the 2016 Republican primaries (at that point he was having trouble remembering even the most basic of things).
That said, removing people's right to vote is not only difficult, but can cause more problems than it solves. Implementing voting tests can codify racism/sexism/etc. Medical tests will just be gamed. And good luck ever passing these restrictions anyway, since old people are the most consistent voters out there.
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#28Re-posting my comment on Math Professor Fighting Gerrymandering with Geometry | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252 4 months ago: [...] a need for expert witnesses who understand the mathematical concepts applicable to gerrymandering. To meet that need, she’s spearheaded the creation of a five-day summer program at Tufts [the first in a series of regional trainings] that aims to train mathematicians to do j…
To rephrase this a little more concisely: SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues). There are 4 solid liberal votes and 4 solid conservative votes and Kennedy in the middle. Kennedy indicated in a ruling a few years ago that in theory he's uncomfortable with gerrymandering and might be open to striking them down, but apart from "I know it when I see it" he doesn't know a neutra…
I was pretty much with you until the last paragraph.
The efficiency gap for all plans[0] shows pretty clearly gerrymandering can occur for either party. In fact, the very pro-Democratic plans are more gerrymandered than the very pro-Republican plans, including the plan in question. There are four pro-D plans with the upper error limit above .2 while the plan in question appears to be at approximately -1.5
There's no need to turn this into "if Kennedy doesn't vote against this he's in favor of gerrymandering because it helps his conservative leanings."
[0] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/pJwDdPDejaHo83ukoW27r6Yaaxg=...
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8831481/Gerrymander..png){kind=link}
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many districts which aren't compact have been created as majority-minority districts, to prevent disenfranchisement of racial minorities. [citation needed] I have seen many examples of horribly shaped districts, but all of them were done for partisan advantage. I would love it if you 1. Give an example of a majority minority district that is horribly shaped explicitly to accommodate the VRA. 2. Give citation for st…
Some of the ugliest looking district ducklings are beautiful swans in the eyes of the courts. For example, the Illinois 4th Congressional District drawn in the 2000's decade is often called the "earmuff" district for obvious reasons. The western portion of this district actually travels along the northbound lane of Interstate 294! But, this district has a very important purpose. It was initially created in the 1990s…
Thanks for the background! That does explain the motivation a lot more.
It does, however, seem wicked racist and even rude that the primary goal of districting should be to get a candidate of a certain race.
Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?
#30This is an interesting article, but the headline is deceptive. The article doesn't answer that question it poses. The reason the Supreme Court granted cert is because the court below, which in this case was a special 3 judge district court panel whose opinions skip the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the challengers. If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would…
That's the procedural reason -- the case ended up in the SC because the lower court sent it up the chain, but that's still not an explanation for why they chose to accept it. As far as I know, they still had the option to refuse it.
> If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions.
I think this is the part that matters. It's possible that the Supreme Court would rather that the judgement came from them rather than the lower court. Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it had gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my interpretation.