Mathematicians Study Effects of Gerrymandering On 2012 Election

[may be rude]

can you defend this kind of tactic?

 

 

Gerrymandering is the practice of establishing a political advantage for a particular party by manipulating district boundaries to concentrate all your opponents' votes in a few districts while keeping your party's supporters as a majority in the remaining districts. For example, in North Carolina in 2012 Republicans ended up winning nine out of 13 congressional seats even though more North Carolinians voted for Democrats than Republicans statewide.[/b] Now Jessica Jones reports that researchers at Duke are studying the mathematical explanation for the discrepancy. Mathematicians Jonathan Mattingly and Christy Vaughn created a series of district maps using the same vote totals from 2012, but with different borders. Their work was governed by two principles of redistricting: a federal rule requires each district have roughly the same population and a state rule requires congressional districts to be compact. Using those principles as a guide, they created a mathematical algorithm to randomly redraw the boundaries of the state's 13 congressional districts. "We just used the actual vote counts from 2012 and just retabulated them under the different districtings," says Vaughn. "If someone voted for a particular candidate in the 2012 election and one of our redrawn maps assigned where they live to a new congressional district, we assumed that they would still vote for the same political party."

The results were startling. After re-running the election 100 times with a randomly drawn nonpartisan map each time, the average simulated election result was 7 or 8 U.S. House seats for the Democrats and 5 or 6 for Republicans. The maximum number of Republican seats that emerged from any of the simulations was eight. The actual outcome of the election — four Democratic representatives and nine Republicans – did not occur in any of the simulations. "If we really want our elections to reflect the will of the people, then I think we have to put in safeguards to protect our democracy so redistrictings don't end up so biased that they essentially fix the elections before they get started," says Mattingly. But North Carolina State Senator Bob Rucho is unimpressed. "I'm saying these maps aren't gerrymandered," says Rucho. "It was a matter of what the candidates actually was able to tell the voters and if the voters agreed with them. Why would you call that uncompetitive?"

 

study by duke university

 

it's well known that republicans have been implementing this trick for a while. maddow has covered it several times.

 

maddow

maddow 2

maddow 3

 

it makes sense that the party that's behaving in this blatandly self-serving (and not constitutent representing) way is the party that's supported by people's greed, in that they stand for fiscal conservatism, though they really just care about the wealth of the richest americans.

 

tldr: this underhanded political tactic makes a difference of 69% republican presence vers the 43% republican presence that would result from mathematically fair districting

[delet...]

The demos are bought and paid for too. All that would happen is that the corporations would make sure they funded democratic candidates that were agreeable to continuing their political agenda.

 

That said yes, gerrymandering is evil. There's a good youtube channel that has a video on how it works with other videos showing alternative electoral systems and their potential for fair vote outcome, can't find it now.

[may be rude]

i consider that kind of generalization to be rather harmful. "they're all the same," "it doesn't make a difference," our forefathers would weap to see this as common parlance. there are differences that are important to discern. just look at the effects of obama's stimulus package (feb '09) in the pic below, which was voted against by every single republican in congress. then consider that a number of other jobs bills were successfully thwarted after the democrats lost control of congress

 

[delet...]

The stock market price is not currently driven by factors in the real economy mate, where income inequality is rising, real wages are still declining, the place is a mess. The rise in the Dow etc. is driven by stock buyback schemes and the cheap money that's being pumped out by the fed, none of which helps mainstreet in any way.

 

On obama, can you tell me in any way how he hasn't just continued the policies of bush II. He continued grabbing tyrannical power for the presidency, he continued the aggressive militarism, destroying libya and now syria (a plan which General Wesley Clarke outlined years ago, which they've been ticking off the neocon designed list countries to destroy one by one). He continued the agressive expansion of NATO a towards Russia and stood by whilst Victoria nuland coordinated the putsch in Ukraine (that's right, it was a coup, performed by right sector, self professed nazis no less), and that unelected dame forced Europe into pushing unjustifiable and ever deepening and odious sanctions upon Russia.

 

Most telling of all when he had been given the biggest mandate for 'change' of any president in a century, controlling both houses by a wide margin. Instead of enacting that change, he played this game of pretending to negotiate with repubs that would never agree to anything that he proposed which had the effect of watering down the stated aims (which were somewhat I'll defined pre election) of his presidency. The intended effect of this of course was to kill time, because god forbid a democratic president with the power to do so, and plenty of extra presidential authority bequeathed him by bush II, actually enact policies that really fit what the democratic electorate has seen over the past 40 years stripped away from them, little by little. And don't get me started on obamacare, he could have had a fully functioning public health system up and running within the first 18 months. He had the power to do so, but did not desire to use it as I have explained.

 

Instead he gave the banks trillions to sure up their too big to fail arses, didn't nationaize them mind you, or let investors take the losses. And so now with all that free money floating around (which continued through quantitative easing) you've got a stock market rise, whoopty Doo. Does that put one more graduate to work. Does that raise anyone's minimum wage. Does that rebuild one more rickety bridge. Does that reserect the American Dream for anyone that isn't already in the top 0.1% and so already living it. No it doesn't.

 

obama is more than just a failure, he took eight years of left wing anger at the bush presidency and has wilfully given it the middle finger, by his every action once in office, doubling down on everything from warfare to the dismantling of welfare. Largess for the loaded, whilst dedicating on the destitute.

 

So I'm sorry man but I don't think the founding fathers would appreciate this constitution tearing hooligan. Who spies on his own citizens, targets them for death "extra-judicially", and continues to march in lockstep not with the people, but to the tune piped by his into his teleprompter by his fascist overlords in finance and the surveillance state apparatus.

[may be rude]

The stock market price is not currently driven by factors in the real economy mate, where income inequality is rising, real wages are still declining, the place is a mess. The rise in the Dow etc. is driven by stock buyback schemes and the cheap money that's being pumped out by the fed, none of which helps mainstreet in any way.

 

On obama, can you tell me in any way how he hasn't just continued the policies of bush II. He continued grabbing tyrannical power for the presidency, he continued the aggressive militarism, destroying libya and now syria (a plan which General Wesley Clarke outlined years ago, which they've been ticking off the neocon designed list countries to destroy one by one). He continued the agressive expansion of NATO a towards Russia and stood by whilst Victoria nuland coordinated the putsch in Ukraine (that's right, it was a coup, performed by right sector, self professed nazis no less), and that unelected dame forced Europe into pushing unjustifiable and ever deepening and odious sanctions upon Russia.

 

Most telling of all when he had been given the biggest mandate for 'change' of any president in a century, controlling both houses by a wide margin. Instead of enacting that change, he played this game of pretending to negotiate with repubs that would never agree to anything that he proposed which had the effect of watering down the stated aims (which were somewhat I'll defined pre election) of his presidency. The intended effect of this of course was to kill time, because god forbid a democratic president with the power to do so, and plenty of extra presidential authority bequeathed him by bush II, actually enact policies that really fit what the democratic electorate has seen over the past 40 years stripped away from them, little by little. And don't get me started on obamacare, he could have had a fully functioning public health system up and running within the first 18 months. He had the power to do so, but did not desire to use it as I have explained.

 

Instead he gave the banks trillions to sure up their too big to fail arses, didn't nationaize them mind you, letting investors take the losses. And so now with all that free money floating around (which continued through quantitative easing) you've got a stock market rise, whoopty Doo. Does that put one more graduate to work. Does that raise anyone's minimum wage. Does that rebuild one more rickety bridge. Does that reserect the American Dream for anyone that isn't already in the top 0.1% and so already living it. No it doesn't.

 

obama is more than just a failure, he took eight years of left wing anger at the bush presidency and has wilfully given it the middle finger, by his every action once in office, doubling down on everything from warfare to the dismantling of welfare. Largess for the loaded, whilst dedicating on the destitute.

 

So I'm sorry man but I don't think the founding fathers would appreciate this constitution tearing hooligan. Who spies on his own citizens, targets them for death "extra-judicially", and continues to march in lockstep not with the people, but to the tune piped by his into his teleprompter by his fascist overlords in finance and the surveillance state apparatus.

 

i have to leave for work like right now so i cant address the whole post presently but i would like to point out that the stock market is one of the main indications of how the economy is doing. another is the unemployment rate, here is a chart of that, which perfectly corroborates the trend

 

[Tricone RC]

I think shit like this simply shows the folly in having political parties at all. If you were to scrap organised political parties, then whoever gets elected can truly represent the interests of the people who elected them - as opposed to toeing the Party Line.

 

 

Another plus side: it would be much harder for shady characters to influence government policy. You can easily get a party on your side by donating enough cash - but how can you do that with a whole room of independent politicians? You'd have to bribe them all individually, which would make it far more likely that someone would spill the beans.

[delet...]

re: very honest

 

Not counting people as unemployed because they have stopped looking for work (this is an huge number). Not taking into consideration that people have moved from full time into casual employment so are worse off, and so on. So no your pointless graphs do nothing to address anything I stated, nothing. And don't even bother showing me inflation figures, hahah, they are so divorced from reality that there's no hope for them. Key indicators are a touchstone for many people to get a feel for how their country is doing, so of course they will be manipulated. Accounting tricks aren't only for rebalancing corporate tax liabilities.

 

Why do you bother to defend this mate, there no point. He's a dick get over it, heheh. Oh that's right, he said something nice about ferguson boy, or likes puppies or something. This man is a war criminal, anti-liberal troll on democratic values.

[MisterE]

gerrymandering is bad. but is it as bad as this?

 

influx-of-minors-across-texas-border-driven-by-belief-that-they-will-be-allowed-to-stay-in-us

 

pelosi-calls-surge-illegal-immigrant-children-opportunity/

 

are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/

 

could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/influx-of-central-american-migrants-roils-murrieta-calif.html?smid=tw-share#

"As federal officials have begun to send the expected 240,000 migrants and 52,000 unaccompanied minors who have crossed the border illegally in recent months in the Rio Grande Valley to cities around the county"

 

new-york-lawmaker-proposes-letting-illegal-immigrants-vote

do i need to mention his party?

 

 

but i suppose its not political at all, it's just out of the kindness of their hearts. i'm absolutely certain that if all of the latino/southern american originated population started voting mostly for republicans, the democrats would still be welcoming them with open arms. when nancy pelosi went to texas and said she wishes she could take those kids home with her, well, shes mega rich and could house lots of them out of her own pocket, but i'm sure there's some real reason why she can't actually do that instead of laying guilt trips on middle class tax payers for not wanting to pay for the children of the 3rd world when they're struggling to pay for their own. im positive. just ignore the endless supply of liberals out there, openly bragging about how republicans are about to be hurt bad by the 'changing demographic'. pretty much openly bragging that their party is rigging the game and succeeding. meanwhile kids are dying, being kidnapped, and who knows what horrible shit, trying to get here. but hey, it's for a good cause.

 

or am i just absolutely insane for seeing a blatant connection behind all this?

[Adieu]

Are letting immigrants into the USA a bad thing? No, not at all. Country lines aren't even real. My opinion is that if people want to come let them come. I think that regardless of the political motivations of the people at the top letting people who want to be here to live and work is a good thing especially considering the state of their country. I don't think it will negatively impact our country.

[MisterE]

and yeah that chart about the unemployment rate dropping is pretty hilarious. they get those charts exactly as delet described, by redefining how they tally the statistics. its almost the same exact shit youre crying about with gerrymandering vh. redefine districts, redefine how stats are tallied. same shit. lets stop counting this group of unemployed people and hey look now we've improved unemployment. well, yeah, for dummies and dishonest people who approve of how you're bending logic and reality to make pretty graphs.

 

also its funny how it relates to my last post

who-got-jobs-during-obama-presidency

two-thirds-of-jobs-go-to-immigrants

[doublename]

If you've been unemployed long enough to be suicidal, they might as well you off the rolls, eh?

[delet...]

 

I agree that immigration is a scandal. The problem is so bad that the country is effectively being colonised. People have been brainwashed so much on the issue that it's as though they now enjoy punching themselves in the balls, lowering their bargaining power with employers, watering down the tax base available to provide services and putting immense pressure on existing infrastructure (that they never upgrade, replace or build more of, certainly not at a pace that matches the immigration that are clearly allowing to occur).

 

It would be easy to stop illegal immigration into the US. Crack down on the people employing them. No jobs, and you take away their main incentive for 'economic migration'. Then of course actually defend the borders and no bullshit pick them up and let them go with a promise to show up for an hearing, but actually bus them to the border and say bye bye. The whole problem would stop in mere weeks. These people aren't stupid or crazy, they are just exploiting the system in the way that it has been designed for.

 

Also retroactively change the law so that their children have leave with them. This is a matter of basic survival for the people within the borders. The whole point of borders in the first place. You build somewhere nice with your kin, you protect it. You don't go fucking over yourself so that the local dentist can get his lawn mown for two dollars an hour, whilst the roads you drive on every day go to hell and basic things like dental care become a lost hope for your family to afford.

 

Also, people talk about this country or that country was built on migration blar dee blar, at some point this loses relevance and a stable country is a much more valuable proposition for its people and the load placed on the land, social economy and culture. That time has passed.

 

/awaits the ire of the naive and the despicable, heheh. [-;

[marian]

/awaits the ire of the naive and the despicable, heheh. [-;

jesus christ, this thread. i don't know what to say. and you guys & gals in the us seriously wonder why large parts of the world hate your guts?

[delet...]

yay, it begs to begins.

[chenGOD]

Yeah you guys in the states should put in place the humane refugee policies that Australia did.

 

Hey here's a quick question for you - how do you propose cracking down on all those people that employ illegal migrants?

And even if you manage to identify the majority of people using illegal migrants as labour, what sort of penalties are you going to impose, and how are you going to enforce them? Oh and by the way they tried that in Alabama: didn't quite work out like they thought it might.

Your plan to police the border is ludicrous in the amount of resources it would take. The US-Mexico border is 3,145 kilometers long. Plus you have the other means by which illegal immigrants enter the country. The economic cost of policing it so that no illegal migrants cross or get caught shortly after crossing would outweigh the economic cost of hosting the illegal migrants (some of whom actually pay taxes, and also contribute to social security - an investment they will never be able to recoup).

 

And this bit is amazing: "The problem is so bad that the country is effectively being colonised." The number of illegal immigrants in the US is about 11 million. This new law will cover 5 million of them. 5 million out of 319 million. 63% of US citizens are non-Hispanic white, and if you include white Hispanics, the white population of the US is 72%. There is one state where non-Hispanic whites are outnumbered by Hispanics - New Mexico (not surprising considering its history). There is one other state where non-hispanic whites do not make up the largest percentage of the population - Hawaii - where the largest population is made up of Asians. D.C.'s (not a state) largest ethnic population is black. In Texas it's close, but non-Hispanic whites still make up the largest percentage of the population.

In 2013 immigrants made up 13% of the total population of the US. And yes Mexicans made up the largest percentage of immigrants in the US, but 28% of 13% is 11.5 million. So who's doing all this colonising?

 

You want to talk about naive and despicable? Bring some informed arguments to the table instead of your usual populist talking points, and take a look at your own country's despicable treatment of refugees. Then get back to me.

[Adieu]

Yeah you guys in the states should put in place the humane refugee policies that Australia did.

 

Hey here's a quick question for you - how do you propose cracking down on all those people that employ illegal migrants?

And even if you manage to identify the majority of people using illegal migrants as labour, what sort of penalties are you going to impose, and how are you going to enforce them? Oh and by the way they tried that in Alabama: didn't quite work out like they thought it might.

Your plan to police the border is ludicrous in the amount of resources it would take. The US-Mexico border is 3,145 kilometers long. Plus you have the other means by which illegal immigrants enter the country. The economic cost of policing it so that no illegal migrants cross or get caught shortly after crossing would outweigh the economic cost of hosting the illegal migrants (some of whom actually pay taxes, and also contribute to social security - an investment they will never be able to recoup).

 

And this bit is amazing: "The problem is so bad that the country is effectively being colonised." The number of illegal immigrants in the US is about 11 million. This new law will cover 5 million of them. 5 million out of 319 million. 63% of US citizens are non-Hispanic white, and if you include white Hispanics, the white population of the US is 72%. There is one state where non-Hispanic whites are outnumbered by Hispanics - New Mexico (not surprising considering its history). There is one other state where non-hispanic whites do not make up the largest percentage of the population - Hawaii - where the largest population is made up of Asians. D.C.'s (not a state) largest ethnic population is black. In Texas it's close, but non-Hispanic whites still make up the largest percentage of the population.

In 2013 immigrants made up 13% of the total population of the US. And yes Mexicans made up the largest percentage of immigrants in the US, but 28% of 13% is 11.5 million. So who's doing all this colonising?

 

You want to talk about naive and despicable? Bring some informed arguments to the table instead of your usual populist talking points, and take a look at your own country's despicable treatment of refugees. Then get back to me.

 

[fenton]

why doesn't the US just join europe already

[auxien]

Boy oh boy this could've been an interesting topic if it had stayed on track.

[delet...]

My country does not treat refugees despicably, we import heaps who stay here. It's those that jump the queue on the boat by flying to indonesia and then having tens of thousands in their pocket to pay for all that transport. they are not poor maltrodden masses, showing up at an envoys mission in a refugee camp. They are queue jumping ex-cons and family trying to backdoor the system by deciding that the 15 safe countries that they travelled through before they got on the boat wasn't good enough for them.

 

IE: We do fulfil our international obligations visa vie refugees whom we nicely fly here and resettle (sometimes to the extent of whole west african villages as is the case with that girl whom was isloated in a brisbane hospital with suspected ebola), boat people are an exceptional case that we need to shut down or it will move from a tricle to a flood of queue jumpers (it is also an issue trumpeted by politicians for and against as agit prop to take peoples minds off the actual population increase). Beyond that though we as a small country net import 450,000 people per annum as migrants, (this is not counting visa jumpers which is half that amount again if not more). Of those we then have family resettlement policies which see the productive member that we intake versus the wasters, ie elderly parents, spouse and children pale into insignificance the economic benefit that is purported to happen by mass unfettered immigration.

 

You live in a fantasy happyland chen which does not fit the modern dynamic. To call my argument populist is correct, but not if we check the media or academia or general liberal minded thought, those people that i once felt some kindship with. They are 100% all for this societal transformation despite the fact that it entails for my society a long term slow motion freefall into equilibrium with every other third world country. Where teeming masses are under served by the state and quasi or neo feudalism reigns.

[chenGOD]

delet: you call this not despicable?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/australia-signs-refugee-deal-cambodia

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29358564

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/unhcr-deeply-concerned-by-australia-cambodia-refugee-relocation/5773242

 

Your argument is basically - I got mine - the rest of you can fuck off.

 

On the contrary to your assertion - I live very much in the real world where there are a lot of people who deserve the same chances in life that you and I got simply by the virtue of being born somewhere not riddled with strife and turmoil. And as opposed to doing nothing about it besides locking the gates, I'm trying to work toward a better future for more people in my country.

 

 

Back on topic - yes gerrymandering is fucked.

 

More on it here: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

[hello spiral]

[may be rude]

delete obama didn't have the votes to do whatever he wanted with health reform. the watered down bill that finally passed squeaked through. even though technically the democrats had the congress, there were one or two dems who weren't going along with the team and that was enough that they really couldn't pass whatever they wanted. they did, however, get financial reform through, would bush have done that? would bush have ended the aghanistan war? would bush have insisted on other nato countries orchestrating the libya no-fly zone? would bush have ruled out combat troops fighting isis? would bush have expanded gay rights?

 

i think it's important for people to fight things like domestic spying and civilian casualties, and i'm sickened to defend such things, but can you really not see how maybe these things could actually be called for? if you're hiding with your family from the nazis who are investigating your building and your baby is crying, the ethical thing to do is smother the baby. its horrible but thats how you save your family. the decisions that get to the presidents desk are the hard ones, the lesser of two evil ones, and certain people are in an uproar over any trace of evil. collateral damage is entailed in war, do you imagine there are not real threats to the united states that need to be dealt with militarily?

 

destroyed libya? where were you when that happened? you didnt know ghaddafi was litterally going door to door killing everyone who wasnt kissing a picture of him? town to town.

 

the stock market has nothing to do with the economy?

 

i didnt say the imaginary "real" unemployment rate that only exists in the minds of republicans is the one thats an indicator of the economy, the actual unemployment rate, as it is, is what economists say is an indicator of economy. it started going down right when the stock market stopped going down and started going up, which was when obama's stimulus package passed, which no republicans voted for, even though its common economic knowledge that public spending jolts failing economies out of recessions. they've continued to vote against jobs bills and successfully blocked several, why? it helps the economy, the money goes to road workers, not financial tricksters like you oddly claim. you dont think the republicans just dont want obama to save the economy too well? that they're that selfish?

[Guest]

could a mod delete that post above this one? it's obviously polluted.

gerrymandering the topic of this thread and gonna talk about the fairness of the world

equality is an illusion. idealism is pretty, but it's not rooted in pragmatism. therefore it often fails to be implantable in a realistic manner.

i do think it is important that we should strive for a fairer world, but the idea is nibbling my mind that a fair world is nothing more than a fantasy to aspire to. a dream. an utopia. i do not even have a clear idea what a fair world is. state sponsored healthcare? care for people? immigrant welfare? welfare in general? food for all?

concerning healthcare: you could deem it pretty important, but is it still accountable when the population pyramid is going gray? this is a real problem here in the netherlands where the baby boomers are moving towards death, and need more healthcare because of that. the younger generation, of which there are less in the workforce, can not generate enough taxes to keep this system in place. also people who live unhealthy require more care. basically all hospital care is paid for by the government insurance (which we pay for with taxes), so basically when someone smokes, drinks and eats unhealthy and gets clogged arteries and has to go to the hospital, or fucks up his kidneys and needs dialysis (2000 a pop, every two weeks. I thank 3 months of checking health insurance files for that knowledge), my taxes pay for that. that's shitty; i do not want to pay for the unhealthy choices someone made.

immigrant welfare and welfare in general breeds lethargy. a fair percentage of the people just stay at home, too bummed to find a job or do actual hard work because hey, if you play a sally sobstory you get your welfare. pair that with the zombo attitude that TV, brainless entertainment and Iphones and what the fuck not produce, and it's a recipe for disaster. don't even get me stared on immigrants who are too fucking bummed to learn the dutch language and can't function well in society. it's a gigantic fucking fail by the government to allow flocks of immigrants coming in, and not forcing them to learn the language. if i ever move to a country, i'd damn well learn the language.

and there's also the concern of those immigrants who are 2nd or 3rd generation. fucking confused on who they are, which breeds a lot of friction (especially in this time of recession). it's sad, really, they didn't choose to be born here, but life is not fucking fair. if you think life owes you anything, you are in for a big surprise. life doesn't owe you shit.

the world is a tough fucking place. society isn't anything else. western society used to be pretty ok, but it was too much of a lure for profiteers who saw it as some sort of haven where you could sit on your lazy ass and receive money.

which it has become.

because

fuck, i don't know. some peeps blame it on the frankfurt school and their neo-marxist corruption of the western state. don't really know about that. reading up about it nevertheless. perhaps we are just seeing the final steps of the western first world dominance of the world. the cycle of empires is one of creating and destruction. it would be arrogant to believe that we would be immune for falling..

 

 

[auxien]

I didn't actually read your post Phoenix (sorry...) but I really do hope this isn't America's age of decadence because it's a pretty shoddy version of it if so. I haven't seen anyone having public sex in years.

[Guest]

be a pioneer then

also bonus points for impaling a 13-year old