|
You're talking to a guy who thinks "equality" means that if black people can't exercise their right to vote in Wisconsin then they shouldn't get to exercise their right to vote in the South either, he doesn't exactly seem very perceptive.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Legal folks, any merits to this tea leaf reading or is it a bunch of crap?The Muppets On PCP posted:ian millhiser possibly reading a little too much into scotus not expediting the partisan congressional gerrymandering case in nc https://thinkprogress.org/ginsburg-sotomayor-signal-partisan-gerrymandering-f24d049cdab4/ quote:Unfortunately for opponents of gerrymandering, the order handed down by the Supreme Court on Tuesday denied this request to expedite the case. As a practical matter, this means that the case is likely to be heard next term — too late to prevent North Carolina’s gerrymandered maps from being used in the 2018 midterms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
I think it’s nearly impossible for Whitford to be decided and North Carolina forced to redo its maps fast enough for 2018 at this point. Remember they also have to have primaries, and look at the short timeline PA had to order to get a redistricting in under the wire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think it’s nearly impossible for Whitford to be decided and North Carolina forced to redo its maps fast enough for 2018 at this point. Remember they also have to have primaries, and look at the short timeline PA had to order to get a redistricting in under the wire. If NC had submitted maps like the court order said before the end of January (which they totally could have) then they'd be fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If NC had submitted maps like the court order said before the end of January (which they totally could have) then they'd be fine. Yeah, but they didn't because of the stay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
That photo is unsettling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah, but they didn't because of the stay. I know. It sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That photo is unsettling. says you, i love her outfit and so, presumably, did the photographer before she leapt upon him and drank his blood to further sustain her through the Trump administration
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:says you, i love her outfit You know what, if the lifesblood of a handful of photographers is what it takes to keep RBG alive, I say it is an acceptable price.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:You know what, if the lifesblood of a handful of photographers is what it takes to keep RBG alive, I say it is an acceptable price. I would die to prolong her life six months. Without a second thought. The amount of suffering incurred by her loss is so unfathomably vast that it's not even a choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
We have opinions from the PA Supreme Court. 136 page majority opinion: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018majorityopinion.pdf - There are 59 pages of factual background and summaries of expert testimony, then 10 pages of summarizing the court's conclusions of law below, then 26 pages of summarizing amici arguments, and on page 96 the Court actually gets to its own analysis. Ultimately they work under the PA constitution guarantee that "elections shall be free and equal" to get away from any possibly analogous federal constitutional claim, and conclude that "the [Free and Equal Elections] Clause should be given the broadest interpretation, one which governs all aspects of the electoral process, and which provides the people of this Commonwealth an equally effective power to select the representative of his or her choice, and bars the dilution of the people’s power to do so." The test is whether districts are "composed of compact and contiguous territory; as nearly equal in population as practicable; and which do not divide any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population." It seems like that would lead to packing. 12 page concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion (Justice Baer): http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018concdissopinion.pdf - This one is mostly concerned (a) that the majority is imposing more district criteria on the legislature than necessary and (b) that there isn't enough time to get new maps in place. 8 page dissenting opinion (Justice Saylor, joined by Justice Mundy): http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018dissentingopinion1.pdf - This one asserts that (a) the PA constitution doesn't go further than the US constitution, so the PA Supreme Court should just use current SCOTUS precedent re: redistricting, (b) the factors the court used give too much discretion to find a partisan gerrymander, and (c) not giving the legislature enough time before taking the maps over. 9 page dissenting opinion (Justice Mundy): http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018dissentingopinion2.pdf - This one asserts that the PA Supreme Court can't do any sort of redistricting, whether a federal court can or not. ulmont fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The test is whether districts are "composed of compact and contiguous territory; as nearly equal in population as practicable; and which do not divide any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population." It seems like that would lead to packing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
 Opinions! Fake Edit: None of these are new, but since I never rounded them up before and neither did anyone else, let's get caught up before any more opinions come out. Some of these (mostly Tharpe) have been discussed in the thread already. KEITH THARPE v. ERIC SELLERS, WARDEN Brief Background: [Tharpe got the death penalty. There is some evidence (a sworn affidavit from one of the jurors that Tharpe wasn't one of the good black folks and that black people may not even have souls) that the votes for the death penalty were race-based. The 11th Circuit denied a Certificate of Appealability.] Holding: At the very least, jurists of reason could debate whether Tharpe has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the state court’s factual determination was wrong. The Eleventh Circuit erred when it concluded otherwise. The question of prejudice—the ground on which the Eleventh Circuit chose to dispose of Tharpe’s application— is not the only question relevant to the broader inquiry whether Tharpe should receive a COA. The District Court denied Tharpe’s Rule 60(b) motion on several grounds not addressed by the Eleventh Circuit. We express no view of those issues here...We therefore grant Tharpe’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further consideration of the question whether Tharpe is entitled to a COA. Lineup: Per curiam. Thomas dissented, joined by Alito and Gorsuch. Notes From Other Opinions: [Thomas goes through the facts that Tharpe's wife left him and got a no-contact order, that Tharpe called and said he was gonna show his wife "what dirty was", that Tharpe raped and killed his wife and also killed his wife's sister, and that there was a second affidavit from Gattie where Gattie said he was 7 beers in when he signed the first affidavit and it wasn't accurate. Thomas also contests that Pena-Rodriguez (allowing challenging race-based sentencing based on juror statements) was retroactive and points at the majority noting that Tharpe may not be entitled to a COA anyway and failing to consider alternate grounds for affirmance).] Thomas: Today’s decision can be explained only by the “unusual fac[t]” of Gattie’s first affidavit. Ibid. The Court must be disturbed by the racist rhetoric in that affidavit, and must want to do something about it. But the Court’s decision is no profile in moral courage. By remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for a useless do-over, the Court is not doing Tharpe any favors. And its unusual disposition of his case callously delays justice for Jaquelin Freeman, the black woman who was brutally murdered by Tharpe 27 years ago. Because this Court should not be in the business of ceremonial handwringing, I respectfully dissent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-6075_p8k0.pdf DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. WESBY ET AL. Brief Background: [DC police arrested 16 people found in a raucous, late-night party in a house that they had permission to enter from someone who turned out not to be the owner or a tenant. The question is if the police had probable cause to arrest based on the attendees having invitations from "Peaches" and, if not, whether they have qualified immunity.] Holding: There is no dispute that the partygoers entered the house against the will of the owner. Nonetheless, the partygoers contend that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest them because the officers had no reason to believe that they “knew or should have known” their “entry was unwanted.” We disagree. Considering the totality of the circumstances [loud music after 1am, marijuana smelled from outside, strippers dancing and people having sex upstairs, and the attendees fleeing when the police arrived], the officers made an “entirely reasonable inference” that the partygoers were knowingly taking advantage of a vacant house as a venue for their late-night party. [citation omitted] ... There was no controlling case holding that a bona fide belief of a right to enter defeats probable cause, that officers cannot infer a suspect’s guilty state of mind based on his conduct alone, or that officers must accept a suspect’s innocent explanation at face value. Indeed, several precedents suggested the opposite. The officers were thus entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Lineup: Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch. Concurrence by Sotomayor. Concurrence by Ginsburg. Notes From Other Opinions: Sotomayor: I agree with the majority that the officers here are entitled to qualified immunity and, for that reason alone, I concur in the Court’s judgment reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. But, I disagree with the majority’s decision to reach the merits of the probable-cause question, which it does apparently only to ensure that, in addition to respondents’ 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims, the Court’s decision will resolve respondents’ state-law claims of false arrest and negligent supervision. Ginsburg: This case, well described in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, leads me to question whether this Court, in assessing probable cause, should continue to ignore why police in fact acted. No arrests of plaintiffs-respondents were made until Sergeant Suber so instructed. His instruction, when conveyed to the officers he superintended, was based on an error of law...The Court’s jurisprudence, I am concerned, sets the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability to the detriment of Fourth Amendment protection...I would leave open, for reexamination in a future case, whether a police officer’s reason for acting, in at least some circumstances, should factor into the Fourth Amendment inquiry. Given the current state of the Court’s precedent, however, I agree that the disposition gained by plaintiffs-respondents was not warranted by “settled law.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1485_new_8n59.pdf ARTIS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Brief Background: [The statute of limitations is tolled for a state claim while it is part of a pending federal case and for 30 days after dismissal. Does that "tolling" just give you 30 days to refile after dismissal, or "stop-the-clock" during the federal case? This is of course outcome-determinative for Artis' employment discrimination claim.] Holding: We hold that §1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock. [citations omitted] Lineup: Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissent by Gorsuch, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Notes From Other Opinions: Gorsuch: Chesterton reminds us not to clear away a fence just because we cannot see its point. Even if a fence doesn’t seem to have a reason, sometimes all that means is we need to look more carefully for the reason it was built in the first place. The same might be said about the law before us. ... Under a grace period approach, Congress simply fills a void, for the great bulk of States provide for grace periods of 30 days or longer; only a few States don’t allow that much or don’t speak to the question. So on the grace period account, Congress provides a modest backstop consistent with existing state law. By contrast, under the stop clock interpretation, state law grace periods are displaced whenever the federal litigation (plus those odd 30 days) happens to be longer than the state law grace period. And that, of course, is sure to happen often, for federal litigation is no quick business and state law grace periods often are. Any time federal litigation (plus, again, 30 days) lasts longer than the 30 or 60 or 90 or 365 day grace period found in state law, state law will be forced to give way, and a federally mandated stop clock approach will usurp its place. [citations omitted] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-460_bqm2.pdf NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ET AL. Brief Background: [The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers tried to define "waters of the United States" through rulemaking (the "WOTUS Rule"). This phrase determines EPA jurisdiction for the Clean Water Act, so it was predictably challenged. The question is which federal court the challenge needs to be filed in. Typically challenges to EPA actions are filed in district courts, but 7 categories of action under the Clean Water Act are challenged in appellate courts directly. So is this rule an (1) EPA action “in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345,” or a (2) EPA action “in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342”?] Holding:The WOTUS Rule falls outside the ambit of §1369(b)(1), and any challenges to the Rule therefore must be filed in federal district courts. ... To begin, the WOTUS Rule is not an “effluent limitation”—a conclusion the Government does not meaningfully dispute. An “effluent limitation” is “any restriction . . . on quantities, rates, and concentrations” of certain pollutants “which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters.” The WOTUS Rule imposes no such restriction. Rather, the Rule announces a regulatory definition for a statutory term and “imposes no enforceable duty” on the “private sector.” The Government instead maintains that the WOTUS Rule is an “other limitation” under subparagraph (E). Although the Act provides no express definition of that residual phrase, the text and structure of subparagraph (E) tell us what that language means. And it is not as broad as the Government insists. For starters, Congress’ use of the phrase “effluent limitation or other limitation” in subparagraph (E) suggests that an “other limitation” must be similar in kind to an “effluent limitation”: that is, a limitation related to the discharge of pollutants. ... The Government fares no better under subparagraph (F). That provision grants courts of appeals exclusive and original jurisdiction to review any EPA action “in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342.” As explained above, NPDES permits issued under §1342 “authoriz[e] the discharge of pollutants” into certain waters “in accordance with specified conditions.” The WOTUS Rule neither issues nor denies a permit under the NPDES permitting program. Because the plain language of subparagraph (F) is “unambiguous,” “our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well.” [citations omitted] Lineup: Sotomayor, unanimous. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-299_8nk0.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
quote:Gorsuch: Chesterton reminds us not to clear away a fence just because we cannot see its point. Even if a fence doesn’t seem to have a reason, sometimes all that means is we need to look more carefully for the reason it was built in the first place. The same might be said about the law before us. Oh for gently caress's sake, Neil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh for gently caress's sake, Neil. Wouldn't this logic apply to the VRA too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
We can't really analyze fences. Signed, Neil Gorsuch Lead Fence Engineer
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Wouldn't this logic apply to the VRA too? Sort of? It isn't like the VRA's purpose is some inscrutable riddle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Gorsuch is literally the lawyer chicken from futurama
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Gorsuch is literally the lawyer chicken from futurama Please do not insult Hyper-Chicken like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Gorsuch is literally the lawyer chicken from futurama He's a Vogon poet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Gorsuch is literally the lawyer chicken from futurama Lord, he's the Anti-Kagan isn't he? She sprinkled in some geektalk, he's going in on empty platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
To the surprise of very few people, the Pennsylvania General Assembly didn't pass any new districting plan, leaving it to the PA Supreme Court.quote:After full deliberation and consideration, the Court hereby adopts this remedial plan (“Remedial Plan”)8, as specifically described below, which shall be implemented forthwith in preparation for the May 15, 2018 primary election.9 The Remedial Plan is based upon the record developed in the Commonwealth Court, and it draws heavily upon the submissions provided by the parties, intervenors, and amici. It is composed of congressional districts which follow the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness, contiguity, equality of population, and respect for the integrity of political subdivisions. The Remedial Plan splits only 13 counties.10 Of those, four counties are split into three districts and nine are split into two districts. The parties, intervenors, and amici differ in how they calculate municipal and precinct splits, and, as noted earlier, the Legislative Respondents suggest that updated data on precinct and municipal boundaries does not exist. The Remedial Plan is superior or comparable to all plans submitted by the parties, the intervenors, and amici, by whichever Census-provided definition one employs (Minor Civil Divisions, Cities, Boroughs, Townships, and Census Places)11. The prior dissenters maintain their dissents. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6850.pdf?cb=0c5bfc http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6851.pdf?cb=a1d195 http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6849.pdf?cb=561609
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
While I like the map in that it results in a Democratic Party edge, given that Democrats really are super-concentrated in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia I don't think you could get a map this favorable to Democrats without that specifically being your goal, which makes me a bit uncomfortable. I could be wrong, though. Is a low efficiency gap always a mark of a superior map provided that the districts are compact?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
I dont think this is any more favourable to dems than any randomly decided map would be? If anything it still seems like it slightly favours Rs. Literally anything that follows the rules was going to be a huge swing to Ds by comparison though
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I dont think this is any more favourable to dems than any randomly decided map would be? If anything it still seems like it slightly favours Rs. The NYT analysis also seems to think that a map drawn completely blind to party would favor Republicans a lot more. That's basically what 538 appears to have stated as well in January. Did the legislature go too far in making Pennsylvania competitive?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Because of the rural/urban split in voting patterns almost any geographic voting map will at least slightly favor Republicans -- they occupy more square meters so it's hard to not give them an advantage in square meter based maps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:given that Democrats really are super-concentrated in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia I don't think you could get a map this favorable to Democrats without that specifically being your goal, which makes me a bit uncomfortable. Per twitter analysis, this would go from about 6 D seats to 8 D seats on average. https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/965710219144609792 https://slate.com/news-and-politics...mepage_taps_top If you look at the 538 atlas of gerrymandering, they find a range from 6.0 (max Republican gerrymander), 6.1 (current, LOL), 6.8-6.9 (compact), 8.7 (max Democratic gerrymander), or 8.7 (proportionally partisan). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/pennsylvania/ This does look to be on the high side (assuming Clinton-Trump results are predictive, which more LOL), but note that "proportionally partisan" tracks the equality of elections guarantee from the PA state constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:The NYT analysis also seems to think that a map drawn completely blind to party would favor Republicans a lot more. [url="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/pennsylvania/"] 538 is generally reliable though... GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
I doubt a blind map would favor republicans more because in order to favor republicans they have to vivisect so many municipalities to isolate non-republicans to specific districts. The map drawn meets all requirements of both the PA constitution and extant rules from the SCOTUS as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I doubt a blind map would favor republicans more because in order to favor republicans they have to vivisect so many municipalities to isolate non-republicans to specific districts. The map drawn meets all requirements of both the PA constitution and extant rules from the SCOTUS as well. So in addition to the lack of a federal question, the map does not constitute a violation of previously-established rules outlined in prior SCOTUS decisions? I assume those are things like "contiguous, compact, generally the same number of registered voters per district, does not slice neighborhoods up" etc?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So in addition to the lack of a federal question, the map does not constitute a violation of previously-established rules outlined in prior SCOTUS decisions? I assume those are things like "contiguous, compact, generally the same number of registered voters per district, does not slice neighborhoods up" etc? Correct. As I quoted above: quote:The Remedial Plan is based upon the record developed in the Commonwealth Court, and it draws heavily upon the submissions provided by the parties, intervenors, and amici. It is composed of congressional districts which follow the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness, contiguity, equality of population, and respect for the integrity of political subdivisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Per twitter analysis, this would go from about 6 D seats to 8 D seats on average. 7.5 per 538 using their model. Their main take is in the URL. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pennsylvanias-new-map-helps-democrats-but-its-not-a-democratic-gerrymander/
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:7.5 per 538 using their model. Their main take is in the URL. And that seems to me like what it should be. Gerrymandering is almost always wrong and districts should basically look like what the SCOPA put out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
ulmont posted:7.5 per 538 using their model. Their main take is in the URL. Thanks, don't think this was up when I replied earlier. I guess the question is this: what constitutes fairness? Is it more fair for representatives' party makeup to reflect the overall statewide ratio, or for elections to be determined by more local ratios? If the former, why bother trying to preserve county lines at all, and just use a computer to draw a map with the lowest efficiency gap? And what exactly are we doing with independents (AKA, "I'm going to vote Republican later, but I'm non-committal right now because our President is a cretin") in all of this, as they don't appear to be represented in the analyses? What I'm ultimately driving at is that it appears that you can draw compact maps that still markedly favor one side or the other compared to computerized maps drawn blind to party affiliation. Should we be removing the human element altogether?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Thanks, don't think this was up when I replied earlier. I guess the question is this: what constitutes fairness? Is it more fair for representatives' party makeup to reflect the overall statewide ratio, or for elections to be determined by more local ratios? If the former, why bother trying to preserve county lines at all, and just use a computer to draw a map with the lowest efficiency gap? And what exactly are we doing with independents (AKA, "I'm going to vote Republican later, but I'm non-committal right now because our President is a cretin") in all of this, as they don't appear to be represented in the analyses? A fair map is drawn irrespective of the political leanings of the inhabitants. It shouldn't matter how many people are registered to one party or another when it comes to districting. That's the problem with partisan gerrymandering. Representatives choose districts based on voters that rig it in such a way to guarantee an outcome. The term fair was defined for us, handily, by using the four criteria of compactness, contiguity, equal population, and by trying to not divide political subdivisions. The first three are pretty self explanatory. The reason you ideally want to keep a political subdivision together (such as a city or county) is because neighbors are more likely to have similar problems than someone from another community and therefore should be represented by the same person. Partisan gerrymanders lead to situations where neighbors in the same city have different voting districts for no good reason. For example, I live in a part of Tallahassee that is predominately black and democratic leaning. My district includes a similar part of Jacksonville, FL approx 180 miles away. Meanwhile people in a more affluent part of town vote with the people in Panama City Beach 100 miles in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:What I'm ultimately driving at is that it appears that you can draw compact maps that still markedly favor one side or the other compared to computerized maps drawn blind to party affiliation. Should we be removing the human element altogether? quote:Should we be removing the human element altogether? I mean, maybe? It's not really possible though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:
iirc when you had computers drawing big polygons (like, one of the logic rules was to minimize the number of sides the polygons had) the result was a hilarious D-heavy gerrymander.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:iirc when you had computers drawing big polygons (like, one of the logic rules was to minimize the number of sides the polygons had) the result was a hilarious D-heavy gerrymander. Possibly? You could probably just slice up the eastern third of the state like a pizza centered on Philly and get a bunch of 55-45 D districts. Which would just be insane. (But if you tell the computer to do that...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:iirc when you had computers drawing big polygons (like, one of the logic rules was to minimize the number of sides the polygons had) the result was a hilarious D-heavy gerrymander. The rules for the program can be heavily biased in one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:46
|
|