• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

SCOTUS Rejects Gerrymandered Districts, Cites Racial Bias

Exile20

Member
The congressional map drawn by North Carolina Republicans after 2010 was too extreme even for Justice Clarence Thomas, who served as the deciding vote in the decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfxqE30aKsg

Gerrymandering can be insane. What defines good vs bad Gerrymandering? How do you judge this? I know racial bias is one way but this is how it has always been although not to this extreme.
 

McDougles

Member
Gerrymandering can be insane. What defines good vs bad Gerrymandering? How do you judge this? I know racial bias is one way but this is how it has always been although not to this extreme.

You would need an independent service to do so, but even then, the process will be home to implicit bias and accusations of explicit bias.

People are people; there's no getting around that.
 

Blader

Member
You would need an independent service to do so, but even then, the process will be home to implicit bias and accusations of explicit bias.

People are people; there's no getting around that.

There's no completely eliminating bias, but there are steps you can take to reduce it as much as possible. Independent redistricting commissions would be significantly fairer than partisan-drawn maps, even if they aren't 100 percent bias free.
 
The congressional map drawn by North Carolina Republicans after 2010 was too extreme even for Justice Clarence Thomas, who served as the deciding vote in the decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfxqE30aKsg

Gerrymandering can be insane. What defines good vs bad Gerrymandering? How do you judge this? I know racial bias is one way but this is how it has always been although not to this extreme.

Good vs. Bad depends on how it's split up. It would take a lot of time to review but it's not impossible to know with Census and other things the government collects. I forget if it was 538 or somewhere else but there was an interesting article about some of the really bad looking gerrymandering are actually for really good causes. Like one was two small slivers connected by this dirt patch between a major highway and that was done to connect hispanic voters so they could someone in who represents their interests rather than be like 20-30% in 3 other groups and as a consequence be largely ignored.

There's no completely eliminating bias, but there are steps you can take to reduce it as much as possible. Independent redistricting commissions would be significantly fairer than partisan-drawn maps, even if they aren't 100 percent bias free.

Would they though? Where do you pull from to do the redistricting? Is it done by government contract? Are you randomly selected like jury duty? Because if it's anything to do with power or money that chooses who does it, you really think political parties won't put any power they have and money towards getting their "independents" chosen to draw the maps?
 

old

Member
So what's the punishment or the enforcement? Do they undue an election? What's to stop the GOP from redrawing the same districts with just two houses changed?
 

Exile20

Member
So what's the punishment or the enforcement? Do they undue an election? What's to stop the GOP from redrawing the same districts with just two houses changed?

definitely not.

There might be push back but both sides do the same but the GOP is 10 times worst at doing it.
 

chekhonte

Member
You would need an independent service to do so, but even then, the process will be home to implicit bias and accusations of explicit bias.

People are people; there's no getting around that.

Some professor created a program that can do it so it represents a fair distribution of the vote which currently radically places the republicans in a disadvantage since theyare way better at it.
 
Top Bottom