Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#61

Post by tzs »

ouid wrote: post #22
tzs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that there are some factors that favor younger people when it comes to decision making, and some factors that favor older people.

Younger people tend to be more creative and flexible in their thinking. As they get older those tend to diminish, but they gain knowledge and experience. I suspect that until somewhere in middle age the gains from knowledge and experience beat out their thinking becoming less flexible and creative when it comes to making well thought out political decisions.

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#62

Post by maxerickson »

opportune wrote: post #32
ChrisBland wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a fair concern, but to me it seems like an "easy" yet flawed solution to systemic oppression, kind of like affirmative action. For starters, by drawing districts specifically along racial lines for minorities, you are de facto also drawing the other districts along racial lines for white people. I also think that more diversity in congressional districts is a good thing, as it avoids "lock-in" districts where…

Some sort of transferrable vote scheme would probably allow a mix of local/personal interests to end up represented.

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#63

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

autokad wrote: post #33
tzs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dont think its a good idea to discriminate a voter on any metric: age, income, race, education, or status of health among them. I am really surprised that anyone would even suggest it

Voting is already discriminatory based on age. We don't let 5 year olds vote, drive, or drink; why shouldn't we impose the same restrictions on say, a senile 95 year old with the mental age of 5 year old? I know why, implementing those restrictions would be far more difficult, but still, it's incorrect to say you should never discriminate based on age.

Ironically, I actually know a radical anti-ageism activist who thinks 5 year olds (and 0 year olds for that matter) should have all the same legal rights as adults.

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#64

Post by comex »

civilian wrote: post #29
ChrisBland wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

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.

Not necessarily a candidate of a certain race, but the candidate preferred by voters of that race (which often coincides, but not always). And only if members of that race vote sufficiently as a bloc to get them elected; nobody’s forcing them to agree with each other, just ensuring that their voice is heard if they do.

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#65

Post by comex »

mtgx wrote: post #13

A 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…

To answer your question more directly: the electoral college system isn’t in conflict with the Constitution because it’s in the Constitution (article II section 1).

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#66

Post by zzalpha »

Spivak wrote: post #40
s73ver wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take the power to create districts away from the legislature. Give it to a non-partisan commission. 1/3 Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 other/no party. We did that in California, and almost none of the legislators were happy with it, which means it probably did a good job. The state still wound up with mostly Democratic representation, but that's more a product of California being heavily Democrat. I'd imagine th…

Woo! Enshrining the current two party system in legislation. What could possibly go wrong?

You're objecting to one example of an implementation when you should be focused on the idea. You can clearly define it in such a way as to not rule out multi-party representation as needed. Many other countries have cracked this nut (see Elections Canada). Of course, the history of the US political system seems to be one of NIH...

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#67

Post by s73ver »

kesselvon wrote: post #54
s73ver wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't include them by name. Just say the two major parties. Doesn't matter, doesn't change a thing.

first two parties to finish in the last election would be just as good

Sure. I figure if we ever get to the point where there aren't two major parties, it can either be fixed then, or we're under one party autocratic rule and it won't matter anymore.

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#68

Post by pmoriarty »

pyre wrote: post #30
lobster_johnson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

"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."

Doesn't this reasoning apply to every case that comes before the Supreme Court, even those it refuses to hear?

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#69

Post by mapmeld »

aljones wrote: post #48
mapmeld wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programmers like to come up with mathematical plans like this, but you would likely run into the Voting Rights Act! Many districts which aren't compact have been created as majority-minority districts, to prevent disenfranchisement of racial minorities. Plans which divide or erase one of these districts get stopped by the Supreme Court all the time. It's a 1960s approach to equality, but you can tell its effectivenes…

The article addresses this specifically.

The article briefly mentions the Voting Rights Act in regards to whether the resesrchers' many simulated maps could be valid maps. The commenter that I'm replying to proposed another system. Both are missing context.

Re: What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case?

#70

Post by thaumasiotes »

mtgx wrote: post #13

A 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…

> How is the electoral college system not in conflict with the Constitution then, if a person's vote in one state is much stronger than another person's vote in another state?

The electoral college system gives equal weight to the vote of everyone who isn't an elector, and that weight is 0.

It gives stronger votes to large states than to small states, except that states are allowed to split their votes, which obviates that complaint.

Post reply on HN