Gerrymandering Supreme Court Case

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
One of the latest cases to make it all the way to the supreme court, regarding Wisconsin gerrymandering.
It could have have national implications.

Audio
{{meta.pageTitle}}
https :// www. oyez. org/cases/ 2017/16-1161

Forum kills the link, replace spaces

Case
Gill v. Whitford - SCOTUSblog

Issues: (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
 

joz123

Potato del Grande
6,554
9,192
BldAeYgCUAIf2Qk.jpg
 
  • 1Worf
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

sadris

Karen
<Donor>
21,131
80,758
It could have have national implications.

Nope.

Opinion | Don’t Blame the Maps

To examine this hypothesis, we adapted a computer algorithm that we recently introduced in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science. It allows us to draw thousands of alternative, nonpartisan redistricting plans and assess the partisan advantage built into each plan. First we created a large number of districting plans (as many as 1,000) for each of 49 states. Then we predicted the probability that a Democrat or Republican would win each simulated district based on the results of the 2008 presidential election and tallied the expected Republican seats associated with each simulated plan.

The results were not encouraging for reform advocates. In the vast majority of states, our nonpartisan simulations produced Republican seat shares that were not much different from the actual numbers in the last election. This was true even in some states, like Indiana and Missouri, with heavy Republican influence over redistricting. Both of these states were hotly contested and leaned only slightly Republican over all, but of the 17 seats between them, only four were won by Democrats (in St. Louis, Kansas City, Gary and Indianapolis). While some of our simulations generated an additional Democratic seat around St. Louis or Indianapolis, most of them did not, and in any case, a vanishingly small number of simulations gave Democrats a congressional seat share commensurate with their overall support in these states.

 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Are any of those algorithms relevant to the Wisconsin case?

In 2012, they won 60 of the 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly despite winning only 48.6% of the two-party state-wide vote; in 2014, they won 63 seats with only 52% of the state-wide vote.
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,616
99,895
One of the latest cases to make it all the way to the supreme court, regarding Wisconsin gerrymandering.
It could have have national implications.

Audio
{{meta.pageTitle}}
https :// www. oyez. org/cases/ 2017/16-1161

Forum kills the link, replace spaces

Case
Gill v. Whitford - SCOTUSblog

Issues: (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

hmm I see red text with double brackets. Possible word filter evasion? Not sure...
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,860
6,821
The court has already ruled (with caveats) that gerrymandering isn't illegal. And they really don't want to get involved in doing the mapping themselves.

So even if they rule against Wisconsin, it will most likely be a very narrow ruling that doesn't effect other areas in the country.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
hmm I see red text with double brackets. Possible word filter evasion? Not sure...
When quoting an url from oyez, the forums do that.

Who knows of they make the ruling narrow or not.

Some judges hinted that is hard to justify a ruling based on gooblygook, and at the same time expressed other judges expressed dismay at the idea that a losing party can still control the majority of the seats in the State house.

Maybe we are approaching a new "one person one vote" shift.

And btw gorusht, fucking sucks with his constituionalism dick sucking campaing.
 

Hachima

Molten Core Raider
884
638
hmm I see red text with double brackets. Possible word filter evasion? Not sure...
just bad AngularJS code used on that website. They should use an ng-bind instead of the variable so at least the initial title isn't garbage.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,284
148,021
Are any of those algorithms relevant to the Wisconsin case?

In 2012, they won 60 of the 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly despite winning only 48.6% of the two-party state-wide vote; in 2014, they won 63 seats with only 52% of the state-wide vote.

So?
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,361
33,428
Lendarios doesn't even understand the concept of borders, you think he's going to get gerrymandering?
 
  • 4Worf
Reactions: 3 users

moonarchia

The Scientific Shitlord
21,388
38,845
Lendarios doesn't even understand the concept of borders, you think he's going to get gerrymandering?

He understands the concept, he just has no respect for them. I hope Trump sends all the Cubans back. We have a 55 year backlog of them. Going to take a couple trips of the USS MAGA from Palm Beach to Gitmo and back to get them all safely home.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,284
148,021
Lendarios Lendarios forgot that other time in America where a candidate with 3 million more votes than her adversary won only 20 out of 50 states. How does math work?
 
  • 3Worf
Reactions: 2 users

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lendarios Lendarios forgot that other time in America where a candidate with 3 million more votes than her adversary won only 20 out of 50 states. How does math work?

Do you think is a bit lopsided when a party with minority votes still wins? And by lopsided I mean antidemocratic?
 

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506
Do you think is a bit lopsided when a party with minority votes still wins? And by lopsided I mean antidemocratic?

Good thing the US is not a Democracy then. Your ass would probably still be in Cuba if it were.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Is this a serious question?
Did you actually bother to listen to the case, or read it.

It is unconstitutional to stack the deck electorally speaking, to have it design so a party is favored over another. Even at the state level.

What the courts are struggling with is, which mechanism to use to determine the violations.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,411
73,480
Did you actually bother to listen to the case, or dead it.

It is unconstitutional to stack the deck electorally speaking, to have it design so a party is favored over another. Even at the state level.

What the courts are struggling with is, which mechanism to use to determine the violations.
A big part of the problem is that any intuitive distribution of districts runs into the same problems you've laid out. In fact, in order to avoid those issues you actually HAVE to gerrymander by creating artisinally crafted districts that attempt to equalize the vote of a person in a dense population with someone in a rural area.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,284
148,021
Did you actually bother to listen to the case, or dead it.

It is unconstitutional to stack the deck electorally speaking, to have it design so a party is favored over another. Even at the state level.

What the courts are struggling with is, which mechanism to use to determine the violations.

Dude, I have a minor in political science. I was studying gerrymandering at a university level while you were still lashing empty milk jugs together on the shore of Cuba.

As someone already demonstrated earlier in this thread, gerrymandering isn't a serious issue in practice.

The court will tell them to redo it, but it wont instruct how. Wisconsin Republicans will just redraw in a different way, Democrats will continue to ineptly lose all elections outside of Madison and MKE. Nothing will change.
 
  • 3Worf
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 3 users

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
40,930
102,724
Do you think is a bit lopsided when a party with minority votes still wins? And by lopsided I mean antidemocratic?

Dude. You have to win The States. You know that word in the USA? You can't just cater to major population centers for your victories.

This is by design and the foundation of our society.
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,284
148,021
Do you think the problem here is gerrymandering? Dems cant win a single district basically outside of MKE, Madison, Eau Claire or Oshkosh

Example.png
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user