and do it in countries where virtually nobody speaks English. Try wandering around Quito Ecuador or Valencia Venezuela with your bad Italian and see where it gets you. Costa Rica is like Cancun or Cabo, try going to a non tourist country and then get back to me about how well you communicate.
Wanted to start a discussion about the possible impact that the Whitford v. Nichol, No. 15-cv-421 (W.D. Wis. filed July 8, 2015)*1*, over the redistricting tied into WI Act 43 in 2011 (one of the many things scores of WI citizens were at the capitol protesting for weeks, and still singing about in the Rotunda daily), has on current and future redistricting efforts.
In case you're not folding it, or other cases of similar background, Whitford v Gill is a case from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin that takes on partisan redistricting efforts. While this is definitely not the first major case to deal with gerrymandering, its the first that makes a major departure from race and economic class and instead is based on the idea that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Now from what previous district and appeals courts have opined, in addition tos SCOTUS, they've presently refused to take up any cases making this argument that partisan redistricting is unconstitutional because there hasn't been a way to accurately measure the statistical significance of partisan gerrymandering. This coming session SCOTUS will be taking up two separate cases that revolve around race-based gerrymandering , but are both heavily influenced by a partisan gerrymandering argument *2*, the Wisconsin case could easily influence the SCOTUS decisions, as it may have persuasive authority on those cases, if not on its own. Still, the court hasn't had a means to measure that aspect of partisanship on redistricting following the census.
That held true until recently when Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee Designed an accurate means of using a quantitive analysis to determine wasted votes in any given situation *3-5*. Being a statistical model that has statical significance which is trough the roof, its likely a model that Courts, including SCOTUS will begin to adopt in redistricting cases. What seems left to decide is the threshold that is considered unconstitutional. In the above mentioned Wisconsin case, the courts opinion (2 R appointed judges and one D) that the redistricting via gerrymandering was unconstitutional, but they stopped short of determining that threshold, most likely doe to the reality that this case will most likely make it to SCOTUS, so determining it on a national level seems more reasoned.
While the Wisconsin case has yet to be appealed--the panel gave the parties 45 days to respond, though Wisconsin has already said it plans on an appeal--its likely that it will end up along side the Virginia and North Carolina cases for the coming SCOTUS calendar. If you do some research on the findings of the model, there are currently 7 states that have efficiency gaps beyond 7%, which is what the authors label as unconstitutional (Wisconsin being at +12% Republican bias, which is apparently the most gerrymandered in the country and explains the flip in color from 2012 to 2016), and two states above that mark with a Democrat bias above +7%. If we judge what SCOTUS has previously said, It has refused to support a case on partisan gerrymandering because there has been no known method to determine, statistically, if a given district has been gerrymandered for partisan gain.
With the advent go the Efficiency Gap, that no longer exists, an SCOTUS has a proper tool to determine if partisan gerrymandering is happening How does this impact the political landscape currently and into the future?
Reference Articles
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-wisconsin-gop-redistricting-20161121-story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wisconsin-redistricting-idUSKBN13H0SV
http://www.wpr.org/election-day-nears-no-ruling-yet-wisconsin-redistricting-case
Fair election Campaign Press Release
http://www.fairelectionsproject.org
1.Decision in 15-CV-421 11/21/16
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Whitford%20v.%20Gill%20Opinion.pdf
2.Articles on SCOTUS cases
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/10/supreme-court-to-hear-racial-gerrymandering-cases/
3.Journal Review Article by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee (free and no Journal subscription required)
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/82_2/04%20Stephanopoulos_McGhee_ART.pdf
4. Brennan Center for Justice Explaining the Efficiency Gap
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/How_the_Efficiency_Gap_Standard_Works.pdf
5. Article in the New Republic written by Stephanopoulos
https://newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering
-- Modified on 12/31/2016 5:55:19 PM
You start a thread and 32 minutes later you get you pantyhose in a twist that there are no replies/comments.
I hope this does not come as a shock to you but no one here is going to jump with a burning desire to reply when you post.
You must have been sitting there clicking refresh every 15 seconds all that time?
Looks like there are some replies now so I hope you are happy.
Settle down relax and have some hot coco
Can I get back to you around Memorial day after I have gone through your far left fake news? Toots, you strike me as a Hil-LIAR-y voter. Just a guess. Stop whining about gerrymandering. Do you wacky libtards ever take responsibility for your complete annihilation at the hands of the people? You democRATS got caught rigging the election against the Burn and you could give a shit about that. Fear not cus the Don takes over in 3 weeks. Shit is about to get real. MAGA!
...but she is also an election denier as well. She is the female FG. Gerrymandering, Russian hacks, wikileaks, Comey, etc. everything BUT pointing the finger at the corrupt DNC or Hills.
Havent we all seen this movie before? Same ending though. Trump won and some butt hurt leftists are still in shock. Shit I think even Mari is done with his mourning.
Think 2018 libs. lol.
Another bad election cycle coming your way so get ahead of the game by warming up all your new excuses now. LOL
...seen this (movie) before, but this is only intermission & we can only hope that the damage that Trump causes for our whole world are repairable.
The world is on fire and Bams is slinking out on his belly. He can do a LOT of damage in his last 3 weeks as we have seen recently.
Trump has a lot of shit to straighten out. The fecklessness and ineptitude of Obama Inc is startling.
It's hilarious to read these boards. All of you morons have no clue. Lefties blame righties, righties blame lefties, blah blah blah.
The world is a complicated question. This Republic has survived for over 240 years with all political types presiding in the WH. And yet, here we are.
Dunphy, you are such a pathetic suckup. But you know I still love you.
BTW, no need to worry about BHO. He's going to be just fine. As has been EVERY President after they leave office. As for what he has done. If you and your righty brethren want to berate him for whatever, sure, why not. Just tells me how ignorant you are of the facts. Not the facts YOU and the other retards here read on here in MSM, but the facts that any POTUS has that none of you peons know about. Maybe you'll be privy to some of those facts later on, but I doubt it.
Why not run for some office sometime? Maybe you can make a difference? Or just post anonymously here and bash the shit out of anyone who is actually in a position to make a difference. Assholes do just that.
Happy New Year to you and the other board blatherers. I'm sure that in about a month from now the lefty turds will be pointing out daily the foibles of my Administration. Hard to believe. Considering they already post up ALL the things they think will happen. Are they in for a fun ride. As are the righty retards.
But we'll all survive. See you soon.
Trump has a lot of shit to straighten out. The fecklessness and ineptitude of Obama Inc is startling.
Can you imagine your post to me if you didn't love me? 
I will be with you every step of the way sir. Many will run from you during the impeachment proceedings but not I. I will be leading them. LOL
As for me running for office.... That would never work. I would lose too much salary if I won, but you know how rich I am as you are at all the meetings.
Have a happy new year sir. Lets go grab some pussy together sometime in the new year! 
eat me Donald..
The world is a complicated question. This Republic has survived for over 240 years with all political types presiding in the WH. And yet, here we are.
Dunphy, you are such a pathetic suckup. But you know I still love you.
BTW, no need to worry about BHO. He's going to be just fine. As has been EVERY President after they leave office. As for what he has done. If you and your righty brethren want to berate him for whatever, sure, why not. Just tells me how ignorant you are of the facts. Not the facts YOU and the other retards here read on here in MSM, but the facts that any POTUS has that none of you peons know about. Maybe you'll be privy to some of those facts later on, but I doubt it.
Why not run for some office sometime? Maybe you can make a difference? Or just post anonymously here and bash the shit out of anyone who is actually in a position to make a difference. Assholes do just that.
Happy New Year to you and the other board blatherers. I'm sure that in about a month from now the lefty turds will be pointing out daily the foibles of my Administration. Hard to believe. Considering they already post up ALL the things they think will happen. Are they in for a fun ride. As are the righty retards.
But we'll all survive. See you soon.
Trump has a lot of shit to straighten out. The fecklessness and ineptitude of Obama Inc is startling.
How about Aleppo? Tomorrow at noon?
If I'm running late, please just stay there and wait for me.
If I'm running late, please just stay there and wait for me.
Query how long a system of government goes before it has a near total reformation. The US is about to hit that fault line...
You don't want to be here anymore, no problem.
Fly safe.
Please don't take your tinfoil hat off. It will make a fine parting gift for you. I'll let TSA know to let you through, with no pat downs.
Query how long a system of government goes before it has a near total reformation. The US is about to hit that fault line...
you stupid ass comment doesn't even makes sense.
in order to have a tinfoil hat on dumbass, I would have had to engaged in some sort of grand conspiracy. I stated fact. Sit down.
I've got multiple combat tours under my belt... pretty sure ill be just fine in any case...
Fly safe.
Please don't take your tinfoil hat off. It will make a fine parting gift for you. I'll let TSA know to let you through, with no pat downs.
Query how long a system of government goes before it has a near total reformation. The US is about to hit that fault line...
damage....?
FUCKING CITE IT
holy shit brah, its almost as if use of actual fact escapes you. I certainly hope you weren't on any sort of debate team, cuz you're failing hard as you flail around here...
Trump has a lot of shit to straighten out. The fecklessness and ineptitude of Obama Inc is startling.
How about Syria? It is now a genocide and crossed Barry's line in the sand and your hero did NOTHING.
Heard about Iran, a terrorist state, getting $150bn from Barry for NOT dismantling their nuke program?
Aware of the Russian reset? How did that go?
Bams allowing ISIS to form a caliphate in Syria and Iraq? Did they mention any of this on Rachel Maddow?
Helllooooooooooooooo! Any one at home? Can you stop getting all your news from DailyKids.com please?
We already have one Taffy here. We don't need another. LOL
Based on your post you are clearly living in an alternate universe.
But more likely Uranus. That's where ur head is.
Feliz ano nuevo, pera!
I think the word you are looking for is "perra" Perra, not "pera"
Pura vida y Feliz ano Nuevo, Perra.
Who are you the Conan of China? LOL
Only in America, bro. 
AND the fact that he misspells the word EVERY time, I can only conclude he doesn't know how to spell it.
What was REALLY funny was watching that old heeb speaking in bad Italian in Latin America and expecting the locals to understand him. It was hilarious watching him scratch his head in confusion when they had no idea what he was trying to say.lmao
Ever hear a cat get strangled? My "Italian" works better than that shit. LMAO!
and do it in countries where virtually nobody speaks English. Try wandering around Quito Ecuador or Valencia Venezuela with your bad Italian and see where it gets you. Costa Rica is like Cancun or Cabo, try going to a non tourist country and then get back to me about how well you communicate.
...seen the future liar-in chief trying to play lap-dog to Putin & Netinyoyo both of whom would gut Donny for control of more land & people. This bozo should have never been elected but the fact that he has means we need to speak up when ever we witness his actions that do not serve the united states.
Nothing more than hearsay.. can you point to one place where I've ever publicly, or privately, stated the DNC is anything more than a garbage heap? prolly not.... Also, election denier? grow the fuck up douche. True won the electoral college, however, he was the biggest looser of the popular vote in recorded history. So much for a presidential mandate... LMFAO
We actually have seen this movie before.... is started in 1914...
Also, what on earth is the relevance of a single bit of your dribble in terms of what the initial post about.
Billy Madison quotes are a suitable response to your dumpster fire of a response.
Havent we all seen this movie before? Same ending though. Trump won and some butt hurt leftists are still in shock. Shit I think even Mari is done with his mourning.
Think 2018 libs. lol.
Another bad election cycle coming your way so get ahead of the game by warming up all your new excuses now. LOL
...bc you were SO insecure that no one would respond or that they didn't reply fast enough to her highness makes you an impatient fuck. Glad I could educate you on that.
I am also glad I got you on record saying that the DNC is a "garbage heap" so there was some method to my madness and you accidental fell into my my truth trap. LOL
I will give you credit FOR uttering the obvious truth as most of the Hills/DNC sycophants here only respond as crickets to the charges that the DNC is corrupt. So a big +1 from me on that.
BUT, As expected, you dip back into the denial pool for the "adult" swim, when you point to the popular vote. The lib media points it out every day. Sadly for you and them we don't decide our presidency based on that measure but I am sure that won't stop your ilk from mentioning a few thousand more times. LOL
And feel free to point to my posts as me saying Trump has a mandate. I have said that the Republicans have a MASSIVE mandate as we now control...everything.
Please keep up with lunacy about rigged elections (they weren't) and gerrymandered districts (they are but both sides do it) as I am sure that will help your delusional party in 2018. Oops. Strike that. Maybe 2020? LOL
Now expect Conan to weigh in on your biggest "looser" spelling. He is pedantic for sure but to make up for it he is also a putz so you two will have a lot in common. LOL
its called starting an intellectual discussion.... sorry that escapes you
also, may be a real shocker for you dipshit, but people are capable of critical thought (not all apparently, it seems to escape you...). One can weigh the facts and realize that the DNC shot for legacy when i should have clearly sided with progressivism, and its eating crow now because of it. Also, don't assume I'm a democrat... I'm not... in the slightest.
The "lib media", or in the real world just "media", points out the popular vote because its fucking significant you douche. There have been 58 presidential elections in our history and on only 4 occasions (6.8% of all presidential elections) has a person that lost the popular vote--again by the widest margin in US history--become president. Thats something thats newsworthy in every sense of the term. Im sorry that clearly is beyond your reasoning skills.
While we don't currently determine the President based on a popular vote, but instead have e a system that was meant to give slaveholders more power (fucking google it dipshit), its something that can certainly be changed. There are multiple ways of going about this from constitutional amendment--before you get your panties all bunched up, we've amended the constitution for just this purpose for senators... so sit down before you even start--or something far more likely like the adoption of the Popular Vote act in state legislatures, which if you're not aware is already spreading like wildfire.
I also don't know if id crow to loudly about Trump being such a huge looser. Its an indictment that he clearly has no presidential mandate. facts matter. Get some.
Republicans also control things because of ... DING DING fucking gerrymandering you douche. See how this circle now completes itself? catch up when you're ready. I also didn't say a damn thing about rigged elections. The results were the results, but the Tower of Pisa didn't lean because it was built on firm ground dipshit.
I am also glad I got you on record saying that the DNC is a "garbage heap" so there was some method to my madness and you accidental fell into my my truth trap. LOL
I will give you credit FOR uttering the obvious truth as most of the Hills/DNC sycophants here only respond as crickets to the charges that the DNC is corrupt. So a big +1 from me on that.
BUT, As expected, you dip back into the denial pool for the "adult" swim, when you point to the popular vote. The lib media points it out every day. Sadly for you and them we don't decide our presidency based on that measure but I am sure that won't stop your ilk from mentioning a few thousand more times. LOL
And feel free to point to my posts as me saying Trump has a mandate. I have said that the Republicans have a MASSIVE mandate as we now control...everything.
Please keep up with lunacy about rigged elections (they weren't) and gerrymandered districts (they are but both sides do it) as I am sure that will help your delusional party in 2018. Oops. Strike that. Maybe 2020? LOL
Now expect Conan to weigh in on your biggest "looser" spelling. He is pedantic for sure but to make up for it he is also a putz so you two will have a lot in common. LOL
River and fg would make a great couple. They seem to think alike, post alike, and both would no doubt enjoy the intimacy.
Yeah, no.... I'm a lesbian... an one of the biggest part about that is fucking other women. I mean I like dick, but not to date .
Like many of us here, I consider myself to be a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Feliz ano nuevo, pera!
except in the few states that award electoral votes based on Congressional districts,
and Wisconsin is not one of those as far as I know. No one contends that the blatant cracking and packing by the Wis Repubs is why Trump won the election.
So you and the equally clueless Strangebrew should apologize to the OP who is not talking about the presidential election at all
to Ed's post so maybe I'm wrong as to what the OP is saying.
Now I am confused - the OP seems to be saying that in Wisconsin it can impact presidential elections. In the overwhelming majority of states, however, this would not be true.
All right Jack put the truck in neutral until we figure this out
It can impact presidential elections as "winner take all" voting often goes by district winners overall. In addition, most of what happens in the US is at the state level, so gerrymandering there influences far more than federal politics.
Now I am confused - the OP seems to be saying that in Wisconsin it can impact presidential elections. In the overwhelming majority of states, however, this would not be true.
All right Jack put the truck in neutral until we figure this out.
It doesn't award on congresssional districts, but on state level voting districts. It's a common system used to determine winner take all.
and Wisconsin is not one of those as far as I know. No one contends that the blatant cracking and packing by the Wis Repubs is why Trump won the election.
So you and the equally clueless Strangebrew should apologize to the OP who is not talking about the presidential election at all.
Havent we all seen this movie before? Same ending though. Trump won and some butt hurt leftists are still in shock. Shit I think even Mari is done with his mourning.
Think 2018 libs. lol.
Another bad election cycle coming your way so get ahead of the game by warming up all your new excuses now. LOL
Havent we all seen this movie before? Same ending though. Trump won and some butt hurt leftists are still in shock. Shit I think even Mari is done with his mourning.
Think 2018 libs. lol.
Another bad election cycle coming your way so get ahead of the game by warming up all your new excuses now. LOL
-- Modified on 1/1/2017 11:53:50 AM
-- Modified on 1/1/2017 11:53:50 AM
Also, good for the Don that he "takes over" in three weeks, that just means their three weeks until we can start impeachment proceedings for violations of multiple clauses of Article 1.
god you a fucking idiot....
Deal with it.
derp de derp... a dips hit has no argument... so tranny. holy fuck are you dumb as shit.
its almost as if I were openly trans.... oh wait...
what a fucking tool
lol
BTW, gerrymandering has no technical effect on statewide elections such as the presidential election. It can have a psychological effect though. Why go vote for your House Rep. if you know he's going to win (as in running unopposed)? Second point. Gerrymandering by it's very nature will also create districts that are overly populated for the opposite party as well; the goal being of course to give your own team just a bit more edge.
Did you hear that the Democrats told NYC they could help them drop the ball tonight?
you may want to query the Efficiency Gap in Illinois. (page 882 of the referenced journal article. Wisconsin has an efficiency gap of +12 Republican, and Illinois has an efficiency gap of +2 Democrat. According to the study, a +7 in either direction would be beyond limit (unconstitutional). SO... unless you have anything than "LOOK AT THE PICTURES"... sit down.
Further, Gerrymandering does have an effect on statewide elections. Most states operate on a winner-take-all system, with a few states outlying with things such as versions of the National Popular Vote act, and other methods of nominee selection. In a winner take all system, such as Wisconsin, operates on a principal called the "single winner district system" where a candidate is selected not by the total vote of the state, but by the total number of districts in the state won by a candidate. Also, I'm not disputing that trump won the popular vote in Wisconsin, that actually has nothing to do with the OP even in the slightest.
Also, if you're going to make a statement like " gerrymandering has no technical affect on statewide elections such as the presidential election," ya better back that up with something... really ANYTHING that refuses the references University of Chicago School of Law reviewed paper thats says that straight bullshit. If your going to make a statement, prove it.
but anyway... another dumpster fire of a comment.. totally lacking any substantive argument...
Saved me the trouble of discovering on my own that if your statement is correct then this efficiency gap is pure bullshit.
I am quite familiar with direct voting for electors by district. Illinois has the same or similar thing. It does not however affect the popular vote result of winner take all. Only two states I believe (Nebraska and Maine) split electors, but you were speaking about Wisconsin and I was referring to Illinois. I took enough math in my education that I do not need to quote a source claiming my conclusion regarding popular votes in a state by state winner take all is correct.
I'm not arguing FOR gerrymandering, just the opposite but in particular your claim regarding Wisconsin being the worst
Same or similar cuck. Make a decision. If you're not aware of exactly what it has, then sit down. It quite demonstrative you don't have a clue what your talking about.
Facts, or shoo
In any case, you still haven't provided a god damn thing to refute the efficiency gap, or the peer-reviews papers. All you've done is wriggle your hands.
I am quite familiar with direct voting for electors by district. Illinois has the same or similar thing. It does not however affect the popular vote result of winner take all. Only two states I believe (Nebraska and Maine) split electors, but you were speaking about Wisconsin and I was referring to Illinois. I took enough math in my education that I do not need to quote a source claiming my conclusion regarding popular votes in a state by state winner take all is correct.
I'm not arguing FOR gerrymandering, just the opposite but in particular your claim regarding Wisconsin being the worst.
All the efficiency gap happens to be, is a measure of how efficiently one side or the other has been at gerrymandering. Why waste votes if not needed? It's all about risk and also WHO they are working at protecting. The more important and more powerful a politician is, the less risk is taken to protect them. A high gap merely means the gerrymander was taken to an extreme. It actually hurts the "winning" side as more votes than necessary are tied up in the district, unless of course they don't want to take the risk. "Efficiency Gap" a "made up" construct in an attempt to reward the side that does it best. It doesn't require dozens of pages and links to explain, so please stop with all your holier than thou, ivory tower bullshit.
I gladly leave you to be alone with your misconceptions and unwilling to hear an opposing view.
Not only is she bossy and ignorant, but a hate merchant and conspiracy theorist to boot.
Some of her "winners" have been that Steve Bannon is a "confirmed white supremacist." As to who confirmed that when I asked, she ran away from that thread.
She has also implied there is a conspiracy in Wisconsin, blaming election rigging on R's by installing new electronic voting machines causing the state to switch from blue to red. lol
In addition, she has derided peeps here for using ad hominem attacks while she is proly the biggest user of them here, on a per post basis
dumbass, Ive actually read everything cited. You clearly haven't, so by the very definition of the word (I've conveniently added the definition for you) thats impossible. Don't use words you clearly don't understand; you make yourself look, well, ignorant. And again, you have provided a god damn bit to refute what that paper clearly states.
I also didn't run away, I'm just not going to argue something thats moot. Its easily verifiable, you're just intellectually fucking lazy.
Also, im not implying any conspiracy. its literally in the fucking cited court documents that the R's engaged in quite clearly evident partisan gerrymandering... its literally stated hundreds of time in that 119 page decision you stupid fuck. Again, facts and reality of LEGAL DOCUMENTS are apparently beyond your reach and understanding.
Finally, learn what an ad hominem is. At no point are my insults to your intelligence being used to disqualify your shitty arguments. Your arguments disqualify themselves well enough on their own--I insult you because I can, and it clearly triggers the fuck out of you, so I keep doing it cuck.
When you've got a law degree, come talk, otherwise sit the fuck down.
Some of her "winners" have been that Steve Bannon is a "confirmed white supremacist." As to who confirmed that when I asked, she ran away from that thread.
She has also implied there is a conspiracy in Wisconsin, blaming election rigging on R's by installing new electronic voting machines causing the state to switch from blue to red. lol
In addition, she has derided peeps here for using ad hominem attacks while she is proly the biggest user of them here, on a per post basis.
What did electronic voting machines have to do with gerrymandering? And what did that have to do with flipping the state red for the general? You really have no clue and are just filled with hate for anyone on the other side.
Thank you for not having the courage to embarrass yourself further by providing ZERO proof about Bannon.
Adults would cite proof. A child would say "just go read Breitbart."
Game, set, match. Mr Dunphy. LO
I'll try again.
My first response to you, ever, presented a point of view different from your OP, pointing out that other forms of measuring gerrymandering demonstrate more gerrymandering than Wisconsin's plan. And your first response was not to comment on my ideas but instead was intended to belittle me personally by pretending you were were intellectually superior and held a level of maturity superior to mine. That's OK if you want to go there as this place is normally a pig pen of incredulity. But if you're going to lie down with the pigs you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch when people start treating you with disrespect.
Here's some information for you. Just because a piece of political science research is peer reviewed does NOT mean or even imply that it is the only method that of analysis that is correct or appropriate. I understand it fits your agenda but it's not the only game in town and neither is your agenda.
You seem to have a very difficult time accepting or even analyzing ideas that are different from your own. If someone does not agree with you then you declare then to be stupid, lazy or douches. Do you suppose you could get this method of yours peer reviewed? I actually gave your efficiency gap theory a thumbs up, but pointed out how it serves a better service than then one you have all your hopes and dreams set on
that may be more accurate. Plus I don’t think the OP understands what we mean by “peer review.” The efficiency gap theory has yet to be the subject of meaningful peer review where it is compared to the other methods. It is just too new and has yet to be widely tested against a sufficient sample of elections. And the defense did not challenge the admissibility of the experts' opinion in the Wisconsin case, so as I said in earlier post, it is still an open question whether this theory will even be admissible when a proper Daubert challenge is made.
Just bc there are articles that "describe" the EG does not mean it has been peer reviewed. If this were so, all of those bogus gun studies on the NRA website would be deemed to be “peer reviewed.” LOL.
And to the extent that some experts have compared the EG with other methods, the EG has not passed the test:
"We see right away that the only ones that don't pass all the pass-or-fail criteria are compactness and efficiency gap. So those get ruled out right away. The remaining three all meet all of the criteria. So at this point we're left with a three way tie. Next, we'll look at how to break that tie.
bullshit it hasn't been peer reviewed. Its in 4 different journals. do your research. Also, when any other test comes anywhere near the p values of the efficiency gap, I'll pay attention to it.
you presented a point of view devoid of supporting fact. shut up.
My first response to you, ever, presented a point of view different from your OP, pointing out that other forms of measuring gerrymandering demonstrate more gerrymandering than Wisconsin's plan. And your first response was not to comment on my ideas but instead was intended to belittle me personally by pretending you were were intellectually superior and held a level of maturity superior to mine. That's OK if you want to go there as this place is normally a pig pen of incredulity. But if you're going to lie down with the pigs you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch when people start treating you with disrespect.
Here's some information for you. Just because a piece of political science research is peer reviewed does NOT mean or even imply that it is the only method that of analysis that is correct or appropriate. I understand it fits your agenda but it's not the only game in town and neither is your agenda.
You seem to have a very difficult time accepting or even analyzing ideas that are different from your own. If someone does not agree with you then you declare then to be stupid, lazy or douches. Do you suppose you could get this method of yours peer reviewed? I actually gave your efficiency gap theory a thumbs up, but pointed out how it serves a better service than then one you have all your hopes and dreams set on.
Or those that agree with you. Thanks for clarifying that you are closed minded and not interested in the possibility of a singular thought.
Happy New Year.
As polarized as this country has become, it is just a matter of time before one side or the other simply overwhelms at the local and state level. Redistricting has been a de facto facet of partisan politics for as long as there has been partisan politics with a localized and focused power base.
The example given by ed2000 in Illinois is a good one, Texas and California are breathtaking in their gerrymandering.
It continues until something changes the paradigm. The Law no longer has the power to do that equitably.
interestingly, California has one of the smallest Efficiency Gaps, as does Illinois... please reference the peer-reviewed article (page 883). States like CA, and IL will have a bias toward Democrats/left-leaning candidates because of the states demographic geography while other states like Michigan are going But I totally agree with you, gerrymandering has been a substantial issue throughout US history, though to Naturally skew Republican for the same reasons.
its largely been due to race-based politics, but is now skewing, quickly, toward partisan gerrymandering. Its quite evident in statehouses already
The example given by ed2000 in Illinois is a good one, Texas and California are breathtaking in their gerrymandering.
It continues until something changes the paradigm. The Law no longer has the power to do that equitably.
“a proper tool to determine if partisan gerrymandering is happening.”
Never heard of the EG before and I just scanned the case but here is my take:
1. If the efficiency gap is the difference between the wasted votes cast for each party, divided by the overall number of votes cast in the election, the formula does not seem to account for certain demographics that would skew the calculation.
Assume that a giant public housing projects are built in several districts and persons of color who vote Dem move there to take advantage –i.e., natural packing. You might well end up with a large number of wasted Democrat votes in those districts that have nothing to do with partisan gerrymandering. I don’t see that the EG takes this into consideration.
2. Ross Perot – the EG does not take into account votes for third party candidates, independent voters or voters who vote for the opposite party of their registration. While the EG may provide a reasonably accurate measure in elections where these categories are de minimis, in other elections these unaccounted voters will skew the 7% EG.
3. Despite the media fixation on the “efficiency gap,” the court did not hold that the EG made the redistricting unconstitutional, they applied their own test to do that. They used the EG only to corroborate their own novel test to determine intent and discriminatory effect in partisan redistricting. In other words, this court did NOT use the efficiency gap as the standard to establish unconstitutionality.
The issue on appeal will be whether the court’s test was valid. If the answer is “no,” SCOTUS likely will not even reach the EG question. Further, whether other courts would even agree that EG is admissible is still very much an open question.
4. And, of course, the real question is – what is the remedy? Until they decide that, this case is not ripe for SCOTUS review anyway. That will be the real issue on appeal
As I explained earlier, the degree to which some districts are "over sampled" depends also upon the degree of risk desired and the importance or power of the person being protected. But maybe sometimes the boundary makers just aren't as good at math as they could be. A better tool for quantifying their efforts might be welcomed. It is still true though that a district with a bigger than required gap is typically creating another district that is woefully short of its own allegiance voters, thus potentially creating an opposition district. These redistricting efforts typically are NOT about dominating the state. They are usually about protecting individual power brokers.
It would be nice if all states could adopt Iowa's method. Congressional District boundaries are set at Country boundaries. It's easier to accomplish when the population is small enough and there are enough counties to go around. Eventually though the granularity (or lack thereof) bites you.
Funny how no one ever really talks about the lack of granularity due to the arbitrary limit of 435 seats in the House. For example this gives Rhode Island (with 2 seats) about TWICE the representation as Montana (with 1 seat) yet Rhode Island has just 6% more people.
And then of course there is the issue of an increasing number of illegal residents being counted thus causing the apportionment for those areas to gain more seats.
Better that we get distracted by something a trivial as the "Efficiency Gap". I wonder how much of my money was wasted on this nonsense.
again, please read the peer-reviewed article, as well as other articles, referenced in the OP. They literally answer all of this.
Never heard of the EG before and I just scanned the case but here is my take:
1. If the efficiency gap is the difference between the wasted votes cast for each party, divided by the overall number of votes cast in the election, the formula does not seem to account for certain demographics that would skew the calculation.
Assume that a giant public housing projects are built in several districts and persons of color who vote Dem move there to take advantage –i.e., natural packing. You might well end up with a large number of wasted Democrat votes in those districts that have nothing to do with partisan gerrymandering. I don’t see that the EG takes this into consideration.
2. Ross Perot – the EG does not take into account votes for third party candidates, independent voters or voters who vote for the opposite party of their registration. While the EG may provide a reasonably accurate measure in elections where these categories are de minimis, in other elections these unaccounted voters will skew the 7% EG.
3. Despite the media fixation on the “efficiency gap,” the court did not hold that the EG made the redistricting unconstitutional, they applied their own test to do that. They used the EG only to corroborate their own novel test to determine intent and discriminatory effect in partisan redistricting. In other words, this court did NOT use the efficiency gap as the standard to establish unconstitutionality.
The issue on appeal will be whether the court’s test was valid. If the answer is “no,” SCOTUS likely will not even reach the EG question. Further, whether other courts would even agree that EG is admissible is still very much an open question.
4. And, of course, the real question is – what is the remedy? Until they decide that, this case is not ripe for SCOTUS review anyway. That will be the real issue on appeal.