|
evilweasel posted:It happens when you've got bigger states and are trying to get like 10 out of 13 seats. People vastly overestimate how close you need to make districts to engage in effective gerrymandering. Let's use your example of a 13 district state, you want to win 10 seats, and let's assume a 50-50 split in voter preferences. To make things easy, I'm going to use 1,300 voters total in the state, 100/district. First, spread the Republicans around. You have 650 republicans, and 10 districts. We don't want a completely ridiculous scenario where there are literally 0 Republicans in the Democratic seats, so let's hold back 50 to spread around those districts. That leaves us 600 Republicans for 10 districts, resulting in 10 districts split 60-40 in favor of the Republicans. The remaining Republicans get spread around the last three districts (17 in two, 16 in the other), along with the Democratic voters, resulting in two 17-83 districts, and one 16-84 district. That's not a particularly ridiculous split. The 16-84 district would be somewhere around the 35th most stacked district in the nation, the other two would be top 40-45. As for how safe the 20 point districts would be for Republicans. There are 229 districts with a PVI of +11 or more in favor of one party or the other.* Of those districts, just three are held by a member of the opposite party; slightly over one percent. Essentially, this gerrymander turns 10 seats into near guaranteed wins for Republicans, and a population that is split 50-50 has a congressional delegation that's nearly 80 percent Republican. No actual gerrymander would be as perfect as this hypothetical, but it's just not true that manufacturing huge advantages in representation requires creating vulnerable seats. *PVI is calculated based on how more favorable a district was toward a party than the electorate as a whole was toward the party's presidential candidate. Since the last election was 49R-51D, a district that's 60R-40D is R+11.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 01:29 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 07:03 |
|
It doesn't require creating vulnerable seats. However, if you get greedy, you can shave your margins thin enough that so while they were safe at the beginning, a little demographic shift makes them far more competitive than you planned at the end. That's the key: the decay of the gerrymander as the new census approaches.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 02:03 |
|
edit: oh hey im a ways behind
Deuce fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:10 |
|
evilweasel posted:It doesn't require creating vulnerable seats. However, if you get greedy, you can shave your margins thin enough that so while they were safe at the beginning, a little demographic shift makes them far more competitive than you planned at the end. That's the key: the decay of the gerrymander as the new census approaches. That's true. Do you know if there's any published research on this? My gut tells me the impact may be relatively small, but I'm not basing that on anything other than my gut.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 20:00 |
Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers) http://i.imgur.com/b5I1PqP.png
|
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 20:02 |
|
size1one posted:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem Isn't there a case kinda like this right now where a SWAT team in Mass. is claiming it's a private corperation when it comes to FOIA requests? Really, I'm fine with bringing the hammer down hard on these assholes who want all the protections with none of the consequences because of poo poo like this. e: Here it is. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27/1309949/-Mass-SWAT-Teams-Deny-Records-Request-Claiming-They-Are-Private-Corporations A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 20:07 |
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers) Utah. I am so goddamned right now.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 22:03 |
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers) @SCOTUSblog 2:54 PM we literally CANNOT WAIT to see the tweets directed at us in June 2015 Neither can I
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 22:06 |
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers) I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books. I may be wrong but I think the odds would make it worth betting.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 17:48 |
|
Chokes McGee posted:I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books. Pascal's Gayger?
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:10 |
|
Chokes McGee posted:I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books. Presumably Thomas feels this is a decision that needs to be left to the States. Does Alito have a stated reason to oppose gay marriage?
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:49 |
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Presumably Thomas feels this is a decision that needs to be left to the States.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:35 |
Crows Turn Off posted:That's funny considering Thomas has a white wife. I'm sure we all know the history of interracial marriage and how his situation would be different if left to the states. I guarantee that old coot would opine in favor of letting states ban miscegenation, right now this very day.
|
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:52 |
|
mdemone posted:I guarantee that old coot would opine in favor of letting states ban miscegenation, right now this very day. Justice Thomas actually does believe that Loving was unconstitutional, that he would have dissented, and that, without federal intervention, those laws would have been repealed naturally. He is perfectly content with throwing everyone in America under the bus, including himself, to uphold his strict originalism.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 23:59 |
|
Precambrian posted:Justice Thomas actually does believe that Loving was unconstitutional, that he would have dissented, and that, without federal intervention, those laws would have been repealed naturally. He is perfectly content with throwing everyone in America under the bus, including himself, to uphold his strict originalism. No he doesn't.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 00:00 |
|
I thought Thomas did remark in an interview he probably would have held up Virginia law had he been on the court?
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 00:21 |
|
Thomas has said nothing, if I recall, but he's pretty much been straight up asked 'hey what do you think' and gone 'haha no I have nothing to say' which like, from a dude who couldn't be more a puppet if he had a hand up his rear end, it's pretty clear he agrees with his buddies.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 01:34 |
|
It's not entirely fair to claim that Thomas is a puppet, he's a strict originalist but AFAIK he's consistent in that regard.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 01:45 |
|
He's a strict originalist that guys like Scalia know how to play to.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 01:51 |
|
He's just a guy lucky enough to have a job where he can nap all day and nobody can say poo poo about it.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:00 |
|
Thomas said exactly what Precambrian said he did: http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/29/justice-thomas-declares-his-own-marriage-unconstitutional/ quote:“I know that people are going to go all off the rails when they find out my opinion on the Loving decision. It’s important to stress that I am not in favor of any sort of anti-miscegenation law. All I am saying is that if I had been on the court in ‘67 I would probably have decided that those laws are best left to the discretion of the states. At the time of that decision there were only 16 states that still had anti-miscegenation laws. If the court had found in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia those laws would eventually all been repealed on a state by state basis. The reality is that all 16 of those states have abolished those laws, the last one was in Alabama in 2000. If the court had allowed the Virginia law to stand it would have only taken 33 years before inter-racial marriage would have been legal in all 50 states.”
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:15 |
|
At least Thomas has good taste in comics. http://dwaynemcduffie.com/opinions/archives/BTYB10.php Dwayne McDuffie, inventor of Milestone Comics, Damage Control, responsible for most of the Justice League Cartoon, and, last, but not least, the guy who wrote this: quote:My writer's block was back again and I blame the courts. I usually write all day with CNN playing in the background. That means I've been continually assaulted this week by the audio tapes of the Supreme Court hearing on our Presidential Election. You may have heard something about this. Anyway, thinking about the Supreme Court reminded me of Justice Clarence Thomas and my eerie, undue influence on him. Seriously, he's putty in my hands. Rest in peace, Dwayne. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 11, 2014 |
# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:26 |
|
evilweasel posted:Thomas said exactly what Precambrian said he did: "News That's Almost Reliable"
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:40 |
|
Thomas seems like a nice guy who has no idea how wrong and monstrous his ideas are. Then I remember that he tried to seduce an employee by putting his public hair on a Pepsi can.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:58 |
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:"News That's Almost Reliable" After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:03 |
|
evilweasel posted:After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source Yea, Free Wood Post is an onion knock-off. Funny satire that pretty much would be an accurate statement from a 'strict originalist' though.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:04 |
|
evilweasel posted:After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:39 |
|
Warcabbit posted:At least Thomas has good taste in comics.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 04:47 |
|
It makes me feel good to know the Justice League cartoon I loved was made by a pretty swell guy.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 13:36 |
|
evilweasel posted:After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source He has such crazy hobbies that it seems entirely plausible.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2014 14:35 |
|
Atheist Delivering Invocation at Greece Board Meetingquote:"When I heard Justice Scalia answer the rhetorical question, 'What would a prayer from a non-believe sound like? What would an invocation from an atheist sound like?' I realize that he could not even, pulling from the depths of his imagination, come up with an understanding of what a non-believer's invocation would sound like and I thought this was really a problem," Courtney said. First Amendment at work!
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 13:03 |
|
Green Crayons posted:Atheist Delivering Invocation at Greece Board Meeting "In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court sided with plaintiffs who argued that a secular invocation held during a time set aside prior to a town meeting typically allotted for a religious invocation was an unconstitutional infringement of their right to partake in a religious observance. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted that 'the first amendment provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.'"
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 15:39 |
|
So this Halbig case is going to destroy Obamacare right?
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 16:40 |
|
Ogmius815 posted:So this Halbig case is going to destroy Obamacare right? Eh, the DC Circuit is packed with Obama appointees. Even if the two right-leaning judges on the tribunal pretend to accept the retarded-rear end arguments offered just to stick it to Obama, there's no way an en banc review will uphold that.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 17:08 |
|
How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 17:42 |
|
Ogmius815 posted:How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me. The counter-argument (example here) is that the text of the ACA created a requirement, not a restriction, and that the committees that wrote the bill intended for the federal fallback exchange(s) to be able to use subsidies. Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jul 15, 2014 |
# ? Jul 15, 2014 18:05 |
|
That actually sounds reasonable to my non-attorney ears. Will the circuit court accept it though? Even if it does, what of SCOTUS?
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 18:26 |
|
Fifth Circuit holds that the University of Texas's race-conscious admissions program survives strict scrutiny. I'm betting a revisit to SCOTUS.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 20:52 |
|
Ogmius815 posted:How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me. If you read the passage in context instead of excerpting a single sentence and sperging over the wording, it's obvious that exchanges established by the federal government were to be treated as equivalent to those established by the states, which is why the first trial judge godsmacked it down. quote:If a state (i) is not an “electing State,” (ii) fails to have “a required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014,” or (iii) has not taken the actions necessary to establish an operational Exchange consistent with federal requirements, “the Secretary shall . . . establish and operate The court also points out sections that would be meaningless (like the requirement that the HHS provide the IRS with accounting of the tax credits disbursed through federal exchanges) if Congress has not intended HHS-run exchanges to disburse tax credits. I'm not going to quote it all but it's in there. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 15, 2014 |
# ? Jul 15, 2014 20:59 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 07:03 |
|
Green Crayons posted:Atheist Delivering Invocation at Greece Board Meeting someone post that Church of Satan troll prayer tia
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 02:29 |