• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah it's pretty weird, we have a strange system that's quite prone to manipulation. I mean redrawing districts makes sense, since populations shift, and areas grow and shrink in populations. But it only makes to redraw them when needed, by independent committees, not being redrawn willy-nilly by the group already in power... when we allow that (as we do), we practically ask for foul play.
 
Florida voters passed the "Fair Districts" Constitutional Amendment in 2010. While I think it's still not exactly representative of the state as a whole, it is a whole lot fairer than it was. Given that over half's the state's population live in the urban, liberal-leaning agglomerations of Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg and South(east) Florida, now our US House Delegation is equal, whereas before it was grossly lopsided in favor of the Republicans.
 
zephyr said:
How can a district just be redrawn like that, by anyone , since that would also change the surrounding districts and also along with that what area the public are represented by, as if it's just a drawing?

That doesnt happen here that I am aware of , not without community consultation and a lot of bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

My understanding (and I could very well be wrong) is that while gov't officials (whomever is in power at the time), may redraw the districts and further 'fill an area' with their voters to drown out the competition. Petty, but effectively used tool by both sides. However, they are frequently challenged by the opposition. This is done via law suit, taking it to an 'impartial' judge for a more fair outcome. Not great, but does try to have an arbiter in that sense.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
My understanding (and I could very well be wrong) is that while gov't officials (whomever is in power at the time), may redraw the districts and further 'fill an area' with their voters to drown out the competition. Petty, but effectively used tool by both sides. However, they are frequently challenged by the opposition. This is done via law suit, taking it to an 'impartial' judge for a more fair outcome. Not great, but does try to have an arbiter in that sense.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen Democrats be forced many times by a federal judge in court to change their newly drawn and very partisan illegal maps.
 
DrewDogBaby209 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen Democrats be forced many times by a federal judge in court to change their newly drawn and very partisan illegal maps.
Click to expand...

challenge-accepted.jpg

;) J/k. I felt like one of us ought to check it out, so I spent a few minutes:

Are Republicans more guilty of Gerrymandering than Democrats? If so, by how much and why?

In other words, Republicans have almost three times as many chances to gerrymander districts as Democrats do. That's still true if you take into account the fact that around a third of all states aren't easily gerrymanderable--you'll find it difficult to do much gerrymandering with just two or three districts, and gerrymandering is impossible when your state has only one congressional district. Of the 30 states controlled by Republican legislatures, 22 have more than three congressional districts, while the same can be said for 7 of the 11 Democratic states. It's also still true if you take out Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington, all of which appoint independent commissions to redraw district boundaries rather than having politicians do it.

...

Or you could think about it this way: of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country, nine are represented by Democrats, who consistently win overwhelmingly in those districts. It's a clear example of the "packing" method of gerrymandering--put as many voters of the opposite party into one really safe district, so that your party can win the remaining not-quite-as-safe-but-still-really-safe districts. And eight of those nine districts? Drawn by Republicans.
Click to expand...

First, who considered gerrymanderable a word? Really? And second, nice solution pointing out states that appoint independent commissions to redraw districts rather than allowing politicians. Score one for sanity. And lastly, L-O-L in that the 10 most gerrymandered districts, eight of which are drawn by Republicans, have NINE represented by Democrats. So, yeah, R's are doing a lot more, according to this article, and still f'ing it up =D


The Democrats? Gerrymandering Obsession

For Democrats and liberals across the country, this is cause for celebration. Why? Because if the court strikes down the Wisconsin map, it also puts the map for congressional districts in several key states in doubt. And, while Democrats have also used their power to draw partisan lines, the net impact of gerrymandering benefits the GOP because it controls the process in key contested states. As Michael Li of the Brennan Center for Justice told me recently, ?Republicans enjoy [a net of] 16 to 17 extra seats in Congress under the maps of this decade because of partisan bias ? And as it turns out, these seats are in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio?battleground states, in other words.?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't send anyone to read the rest of that article. While it points out Republicans have gerrymandered a lot, the article spends a lot more time on how Democrats should worry less about the redisctricting and more on simply winning the damn districts as they lost a lot when they focused too much on the White House. Only takeaway I can offer is the quote - Both draw partisan lines, but the GOP benefits from it.

How Maryland Democrats pulled off their aggressive gerrymander

For a sense of the extent of the Democrat-drawn gerrymander, consider this: In 2016, Republican candidates won 37 percent of the statewide two-party vote for U.S. House seats. But because of the way Democrats drew district boundaries after the 2010 Census, that translated to just one of the state's eight House seats.

...

Those two Democratic strongholds offset the Republican strength in all of western Maryland, creating a district that Democrat John Delaney won with a comfortable 56 percent of the vote in 2016.

As it turns out, most of the state's districts appear to have been drawn with the same general strategy in mind: to use liberal voters from the Washington metro area to offset conservative strength elsewhere. Here, for instance, are the 4th and 8th districts, both won by Democrats with more than 60 percent of the vote in 2016.

...

These partisan incentives could be eliminated ? or at least greatly reduced ? by taking redistricting power out of the hands of state legislatures and letting nonpartisan, independent commissions draw the lines instead. That's how districts are drawn in states such as California and Arizona.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Maryland case could influence whether more states follow suit before the 2020 redistricting cycle begins.
Click to expand...

This is the ONLY article I found outlining Democratic gerrymandering, and how it is being challenged in court. The ONLY one. And its not subtle in the least. (Maybe they need more practice :D ) At least it closes with a hint towards rational, fair redistricting as a possibility going forward.

Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth

As correctly pointed out by Nate Silver, members of Congress are increasingly insulated by the increasing polarization of their districts. Ever-larger victory margins reflect ever-safer re-election races.

However, Silver has also restated a common belief. He states that partisan gerrymandering is a symmetric problem, i.e. both Democrats and Republicans do it. Although both sides are potentially motivated, only one side has taken redistricting to extremes. Recent changes in partisan gerrymandering constitute one of the major crises facing our system of government (link to Mann/Ornstein book, a fellow Wonky winner).
Click to expand...

Ok, this one comes with a warning. Anyone bold enough to read this tl;dr post gets their payday with a statisticians wet dream on gerrymandering effects by the parties. Snoozefest for the rest, so if you just want to skip to the end and solve the mystery

Republicans are bad.
 
cduggles said:
I'll answer this more thoroughly later I'm the week. I definitely have some answers. ;)
Click to expand...

My 'face value' interpretation of the census was that everyone gets counted. Would I be correct in assuming you intend to follow the gerrymander's trail on how to hide people so their vote is essentially suppressed?
 
the caravan is still moving but the deployed troops are withdrawing.

was that anything more than a massively wasteful- $200 million - political stunt?

alasdair
 
swilow said:
You gotta lol:

Ivanka Trump used personal email account for government work
Click to expand...

A few points of difference, as this will be compared to Trump's outrage over Hillary's servers...

Gov't Employee - Ivanka, no, just wife of Gov't official. Hillary, yes, operating as Sec. of State.
Qty of emails - Ivanka, hundreds. Hillary, thousands.
Content of emails - Ivanka, nothing secret. Hillary, many secret.
Experience to know better - Ivanka, just coming into the White House (14mo ago). Hillary, career politician having been First Lady, and at that point for Sec. of State for how many years?


Yes, there is hypocrisy in Ivanka's use of a private email server when Trump raised hell about Hillary's. But while they are both fruits, this is apples and oranges. Both doing it doesn't make either acceptable.
 
alasdairm said:
the caravan is still moving but the deployed troops are withdrawing.

was that anything more than a massively wasteful- $200 million - political stunt?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Well I bet it riled up Trump's base for the midterm elections, now didn't it? I wonder what mental gymnastics they'll come up with to try to rationalize how this wasn't a manipulative publicity stunt?
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Experience to know better - Ivanka, just coming into the White House (14mo ago). Hillary, career politician having been First Lady, and at that point for Sec. of State for how many years?
Click to expand...
i think that's a poor excuse. "lock her up!" was a core message of trump's campaign. she can't possibly have not known this was a big no no after all that fuss.

it's just yet another example of behavior for which trump berated somebody then he, or a member of his administration, went on to do.

alasdair
 
TheLoveBandit said:
My understanding (and I could very well be wrong) is that while gov't officials (whomever is in power at the time), may redraw the districts and further 'fill an area' with their voters to drown out the competition. Petty, but effectively used tool by both sides. However, they are frequently challenged by the opposition. This is done via law suit, taking it to an 'impartial' judge for a more fair outcome. Not great, but does try to have an arbiter in that sense.
Click to expand...

Some work has been done to quantify gerrymandering via the "efficiency gap":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_gap

Although, one more complete way of eliminating the concern is to use mixed-member proportional representation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional

where essentially the total party vote by state would be counted and additional seats awarded to any party that got underrepresented. The downside of MMP is that it is hard to determine exactly who gets awarded the "make-up" seats.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
A few points of difference, as this will be compared to Trump's outrage over Hillary's servers...

Gov't Employee - Ivanka, no, just wife of Gov't official. Hillary, yes, operating as Sec. of State.
Qty of emails - Ivanka, hundreds. Hillary, thousands.
Content of emails - Ivanka, nothing secret. Hillary, many secret.
Experience to know better - Ivanka, just coming into the White House (14mo ago). Hillary, career politician having been First Lady, and at that point for Sec. of State for how many years?


Yes, there is hypocrisy in Ivanka's use of a private email server when Trump raised hell about Hillary's. But while they are both fruits, this is apples and oranges. Both doing it doesn't make either acceptable.
Click to expand...

True.

alasdairm said:
i think that's a poor excuse. "lock her up!" was a core message of trump's campaign. she can't possibly have not known this was a big no no after all that fuss.

it's just yet another example of behavior for which trump berated somebody then he, or a member of his administration, went on to do.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Also true.

Were in the Trump camp, I'd be damn careful about this stuff...:\
 
TheLoveBandit said:
A few points of difference, as this will be compared to Trump's outrage over Hillary's servers...

Gov't Employee - Ivanka, no, just wife of Gov't official. Hillary, yes, operating as Sec. of State.
Qty of emails - Ivanka, hundreds. Hillary, thousands.
Content of emails - Ivanka, nothing secret. Hillary, many secret.
Experience to know better - Ivanka, just coming into the White House (14mo ago). Hillary, career politician having been First Lady, and at that point for Sec. of State for how many years?


Yes, there is hypocrisy in Ivanka's use of a private email server when Trump raised hell about Hillary's. But while they are both fruits, this is apples and oranges. Both doing it doesn't make either acceptable.
Click to expand...

makes sense.

i still lol'd at swilows post.
 
Last edited:
assclass said:
The president is like a surfer.
You shouldn't just blame him when the wave he rode becomes a tsunami and hits the shore. Twas the wave that brought him to the people.
Click to expand...

Posted with written consent by author.


Food for thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top