I can't seem to find information on why the new districts being defined are not just optimizing for Red? The intent is that the new districts are determined by some neutral algorithm (and it will be Blue / Red based that population) - but are they? What is the process being used?
Comments (33)
sorted by:
How many Republican House seats are there in the New England states? none, none and none.
I don’t debate that the districts as they were- were defined to maximize to Blue, same it was not a real representation of the population.
How do we know that the new boundaries defined are really the true representation and not optimized for Red?
The democrats had a tool that prevented the republicans from doing similar redistricting as the democrats have done. The SC wiped out their race based tool. Redistricting is one method that the state legislature winners get their say and the people that elected the legislature get their say. It has been perverted by three things: race based (on the way to fixing that), counting non-citizens in the census, and massive democrat cheating. The Trump Team is working on all three.
Agree, but this did not answer my question.
What did the districts look like before the racial "gerrymandering"?
I don’t know? Is that what they’ve gone back to?
That would be reasonable
I'm only assuming that... So I'm kind of asking also.
/u/taQo gave me a very helpful response
Down thread... with Racing Trump gif....
Yes. While gerrymandering has long fucked up districts, the civil rights movement was about being colorblind --- your skin color doesn't matter --- democrats redrew districts so that the only thing that mattered was your skin color. Then they leveraged minority districts to overthrow majority districts.
Agree with you. So much to say in response about what has happened to our society.
Ug. Too much and not enough time to write.
I don’t know how long it will take us to be normal again
Political districts aren't based on race. Figure it out dims.
It's no longer based exclusively on race...
u/#racingtrump
The Court ruled that race cannot be the predominant factor when creating voting maps. Instead, mapmakers rely heavily on the following data points and principles:
Partisan Voting History: Mapmakers look at past election results rather than individual party registrations. They analyze how precincts voted in previous presidential, gubernatorial, or senatorial races to predict future voting behavior.
Political Gain (Partisan Gerrymandering): The Supreme Court previously ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond the reach of federal courts. Lawmakers can explicitly draw maps to favor one political party over another, provided they rely on political data rather than racial demographics.
Core Preservation: Mapmakers often design new districts to protect incumbent politicians or keep the vast majority of an existing district's population together.
Geographic and Administrative Lines: Mapmakers use hard, race-neutral boundaries like county lines, city limits, major highways, and rivers to segment voters.
Mathematical Compactness: Computers use algorithms to pack populations into geometric shapes that minimize sprawling or irregular borders. No more crap like this
Because race and political party affiliation are often highly correlated, the Supreme Court noted that mapmakers must clearly disentangle the two. Under this legal framework, a state can legally justify highly skewed or unusual districts by arguing they were drawn for purely political or partisan objectives, rather than racial ones.
I found that to be very informative- thank you so much! What the processes used to determine these maps was what i was wanting to find
What I’m surprised by is that there is no intent to be impartial- rather, it is expected you WILL be partisan, but you can’t be partisan based on race.
I still find this partisan approach to be whacked. Having said that, i do get it to some extent that you want an elected representative to support the majority of their constituents…. Not just 51% of them
I had to ask Google AI, because it wasn't clear to me either, fren.
In fact, a week ago, I had NO IDEA they were even basing them on race! I certainly thought that had to be an impossibility because every place of business has a bulletin board plastered with govt law and propaganda I guess? - telling us how they're "equal opportunity" etcetera.
AI just gave me a list of websites and initially would not answer the question regarding what districts were actually based on if not race... After telling it I'm not sifting through all those, it soit out essentially what I posted - albeit more verbose and sloppy...
To be clear, they STILL may use race as a partial determining factor - but legally now, they can't use it as the primary factor when creating the map...So we should keep an eye on that.
u/#catdance
Your pepe is the pepe i want when I’m all grown up!
I should have thought to go to AI to get that question started, but i am not an AI fan. Use it or lose it….. and i fear we will lose a lot in the coming years.
Because the system the democrats were using was based on race. At some point, I think in the 80s, it was brought to the court's attention that minority people would "never get representation" because they were outnumbered. Of course, that's a false assumption because it assumes minorities will always vote differently than majorities.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS at the time agreed (bad, unconstitutional decision) and allowed states to create these ridiculous and bizarrely shaped districts in order to get enough minority - aka - black people, into a district to constitute a need for a representative. (The constitution says a district may have no fewer than 30,000 people.) So, the race based districts began. And consequently, fouled up our country for decades.
What is happening now is not so much a race to make every district republican as it is to make districts that make sense and oh, by the way, most of them will be conservative because that's how it actually is.
I believe that the majority in districts are going to turn Red- because as you said- that’s how it actually is
The answer I’m seeking is the substantiation that these are fairly determined districts. Who decided the new boundaries? Do we know that they are impartially determined? What is the objective proof they are impartial?
Rules are different for each state.
It seems like something that should be consistent?
It go's back to the old days,when the states had a lot of power over the federal govt.
We need more of that. When we passed the 17th amendment,the states are no longer represented in congress. Things have really gone to shit since then.
I see your point. States do need more power. I was thinking only about federal elections…(durg, so myopic)
Actually, there is no need for impartiality. SCOTUS determined districts COULD be drawn based on party affiliation. Strange as that may sound. But racial districts are unconstitutional.
One of the other respondents (u/taQo) gave great info on the rules/guides used to determine districts, and what you’ve also pointed out was abundantly clear in those
I’m surprised by it and most of me thinks it is problematic; I also see that a representative should be repping for more than 51% of their constituents.
I’m learning a ton today, you guys are great!!
Some states have employed schemes that attempt to use impartial non-partial rules. CA did one of those under Schwarzenegger; it took all that partisan bickering off the table. Until last June, that is.
Oh, that sounds like it was an agreeable process for everyone!
The difference? Districts should be closer to representing a geographical circle than looking like a twisted pretzel or toxic spill site.
Check some of the other responses to this, and you’ll see the guidelines used to determine district boundaries. This is what i was not understanding.
Just for reference,
The party in power has always gerrymandered. But, true to form, in the last few years the demoncrats used "racism" as a bludgeon to prevent Republicans from undoing the blatantly illegal race-based lib created districts that kept them in power. Libs are just mad that they have lost the power to stop what has always occurred in the past, change based on WHO WINS ELECTIONS.
Agree- this is a both party problem.
The root of my question was to try to understand why this is now not just Republicans doing it (previously Red and Blue).
Its meant to be based on population.
This site shows the maps for each state for each election cycle, including the latest ones (like in Tennesse). Best way to know is to take a look for yourself.
I would bet that the Republicans are using AI for the redistricting. With a limitation of keeping most of the current safe Republican seats the same. Lots of variables goes into it I believe. Everything that gives a hint who you are; beyond your registration; especially if you’re an independent. They used to use what magazines you bought, etc. Now, I am sure it is way more sophisticated. Many of the things you buy; online subscriptions; political contributions; voting reliably/propensity; neighbors; etc. Lots of public and commercial databases that can all be thrown into the pot to analyze. It could be even more complex by determining if the person is eligible to vote or not and the historical voter fraud percentage coming out of the different precincts. The last one is very important. Minimizing the steal probability.
I had no idea that use all of that sort of information.
Eye opening.
At the same time, F the data centers being built everywhere.