Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Isn't Gerrymandering short-sighted?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:01:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps I am thinking too simplistically, but I don't see the value of gerrymandering, except for the immediate future, and even then it's dubious.

Let's use party politics and a simple scenario.
There is a state with 100 people, divided into four districts. There are 40 people in the rural areas, which are divided into three districts, and a single city is a single district. The shape of the state is square, and the center of the city is in the center of the state.

All 40 rural people are Republicans, so that is three seats. Dems have the city district.
The west half of the city is heavily dem, with each quadrant being 12- D and 3- R, the east side is evenly split in its quadrants with 10 - R and 5 - D. The city is currently 34-D to 26-R.

Since Republicans have the house, they decide to gerrymander and redistrict the state by quadrants of the state. This immediately gives the R's four seats come next election. However, by doing so, They weakened two districts with a margin of 1 for loss of seat. The east is strengthened, but still weaker than the previous powerhouse of 100%.

To me, it seems to balance out, since the myopic seat grab jeopardizes their long term success. And, it's not like people don't move. So, I don't see the big issue of redistricting in the long run.

Am I being too simplistic?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:01:53 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Perhaps I am thinking too simplistically, but I don't see the value of gerrymandering, except for the immediate future, and even then it's dubious.

Let's use party politics and a simple scenario.
There is a state with 100 people, divided into four districts. There are 40 people in the rural areas, which are divided into three districts, and a single city is a single district. The shape of the state is square, and the center of the city is in the center of the state.

All 40 rural people are Republicans, so that is three seats. Dems have the city district.
The west half of the city is heavily dem, with each quadrant being 12- D and 3- R, the east side is evenly split in its quadrants with 10 - R and 5 - D. The city is currently 34-D to 26-R.

Since Republicans have the house, they decide to gerrymander and redistrict the state by quadrants of the state. This immediately gives the R's four seats come next election. However, by doing so, They weakened two districts with a margin of 1 for loss of seat. The east is strengthened, but still weaker than the previous powerhouse of 100%.

To me, it seems to balance out, since the myopic seat grab jeopardizes their long term success. And, it's not like people don't move. So, I don't see the big issue of redistricting in the long run.

Am I being too simplistic?

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:46:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM, monty1 wrote:

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.
More insults....
This is a nuanced topic, since I am addressing a very specific aspect. But, I wouldn't expect you to see past your own bigoted hate.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?

What fantasy?
Either gerrymandering is an effort to pick up seats while weakening other districts or not.
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 12:28:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:46:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM, monty1 wrote:

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.
More insults....
This is a nuanced topic, since I am addressing a very specific aspect. But, I wouldn't expect you to see past your own bigoted hate.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?

What fantasy?
Either gerrymandering is an effort to pick up seats while weakening other districts or not.

Your fantasy that gerrymandering is short sighted. Do you even think things out before you start votiming out your nonsense? Isn't it evidently plain to you that gerrymandering is done to gain advantages?

brother!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 12:50:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 12:28:06 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:46:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM, monty1 wrote:

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.
More insults....
This is a nuanced topic, since I am addressing a very specific aspect. But, I wouldn't expect you to see past your own bigoted hate.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?

What fantasy?
Either gerrymandering is an effort to pick up seats while weakening other districts or not.

Your fantasy that gerrymandering is short sighted. Do you even think things out before you start votiming out your nonsense? Isn't it evidently plain to you that gerrymandering is done to gain advantages?

brother!
I see you read as well in this thread as you do in the other.
I said in the OP it is done to gain advantages, as in votes/seats.
I am trying to understand the logic of it, because it seems like they get this advantage by threatening their races by weakening their leads.

Quote:
To me, it seems to balance out, since the myopic seat grab jeopardizes their long term success. And, it's not like people don't move. So, I don't see the big issue of redistricting in the long run.

How is this not acknowledging the reason for it, and not showing my confusion?
How about instead of being a jerk, you explain why, in the long run, it is still beneficial for them, since that is what I am asking?
Or, do you not understand a straight forward question, in addition to explicit assertions and nuanced arguments?
My work here is, finally, done.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 2:01:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.

If the state was so heavily red, then why do they need to gerrymander at all?
But, I see your point. They can spread out the risk and weaken the opposition equally.

Is gerrymandering common in strongholds or just in close areas?
I live in a purple state and there was talks of gerrymandering, which would seem more like my example. And between the dynamics of immigration, emigration, and population and/or view changes, it seems dangerous, especially when only done every 10 years. (every year I could see, because you'd just redistrict to your advantage every year)
My work here is, finally, done.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 2:06:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 2:01:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.

If the state was so heavily red, then why do they need to gerrymander at all?
But, I see your point. They can spread out the risk and weaken the opposition equally.

Is gerrymandering common in strongholds or just in close areas?
I live in a purple state and there was talks of gerrymandering, which would seem more like my example. And between the dynamics of immigration, emigration, and population and/or view changes, it seems dangerous, especially when only done every 10 years. (every year I could see, because you'd just redistrict to your advantage every year)

Gerrymandering is common everywhere, but more so in strongholds. Demographically speaking, almost all states would be purple, but gerrymandering, on part of both the republicans and the democrats, have made it so that only 35 true swing districts remain in existence, according to DR. Alan Abramowitz.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 2:20:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 2:06:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:01:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.

If the state was so heavily red, then why do they need to gerrymander at all?
But, I see your point. They can spread out the risk and weaken the opposition equally.

Is gerrymandering common in strongholds or just in close areas?
I live in a purple state and there was talks of gerrymandering, which would seem more like my example. And between the dynamics of immigration, emigration, and population and/or view changes, it seems dangerous, especially when only done every 10 years. (every year I could see, because you'd just redistrict to your advantage every year)

Gerrymandering is common everywhere, but more so in strongholds. Demographically speaking, almost all states would be purple, but gerrymandering, on part of both the republicans and the democrats, have made it so that only 35 true swing districts remain in existence, according to DR. Alan Abramowitz.

It seems this is most problematic where there is a stronghold, though. Very problematic.
In the closer races, though, am I right to assume it weakens other districts, to the point that in ten years, they may have cost themselves that seat?

How does one combat this?
My work here is, finally, done.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 4:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 2:20:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:06:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:01:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.

If the state was so heavily red, then why do they need to gerrymander at all?
But, I see your point. They can spread out the risk and weaken the opposition equally.

Is gerrymandering common in strongholds or just in close areas?
I live in a purple state and there was talks of gerrymandering, which would seem more like my example. And between the dynamics of immigration, emigration, and population and/or view changes, it seems dangerous, especially when only done every 10 years. (every year I could see, because you'd just redistrict to your advantage every year)

Gerrymandering is common everywhere, but more so in strongholds. Demographically speaking, almost all states would be purple, but gerrymandering, on part of both the republicans and the democrats, have made it so that only 35 true swing districts remain in existence, according to DR. Alan Abramowitz.

It seems this is most problematic where there is a stronghold, though. Very problematic.
In the closer races, though, am I right to assume it weakens other districts, to the point that in ten years, they may have cost themselves that seat?

How does one combat this?

That is a very tough question. Gerrymandering has been around for almost as long as the states have themselves. It is a very difficult situation all around, for everyone.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 12:50:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 12:28:06 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:46:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM, monty1 wrote:

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.
More insults....
This is a nuanced topic, since I am addressing a very specific aspect. But, I wouldn't expect you to see past your own bigoted hate.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?

What fantasy?
Either gerrymandering is an effort to pick up seats while weakening other districts or not.

Your fantasy that gerrymandering is short sighted. Do you even think things out before you start votiming out your nonsense? Isn't it evidently plain to you that gerrymandering is done to gain advantages?

brother!
I see you read as well in this thread as you do in the other.
I said in the OP it is done to gain advantages, as in votes/seats.
I am trying to understand the logic of it, because it seems like they get this advantage by threatening their races by weakening their leads.

Quote:
To me, it seems to balance out, since the myopic seat grab jeopardizes their long term success. And, it's not like people don't move. So, I don't see the big issue of redistricting in the long run.

How is this not acknowledging the reason for it, and not showing my confusion?
How about instead of being a jerk, you explain why, in the long run, it is still beneficial for them, since that is what I am asking?
Or, do you not understand a straight forward question, in addition to explicit assertions and nuanced arguments?

I would tell you that the amount one wins by isn't as important as just winning a number of seats but I'm sure you're not going to understand that either.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 8:09:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 4:45:46 PM, monty1 wrote:

I would tell you that the amount one wins by isn't as important as just winning a number of seats but I'm sure you're not going to understand that either.

*gasp* Really?!? Gee, I didn't know that, let alone imply that in the OP at all.

Go away, monty1. You obviously cannot read or think.
Look at the title of the thread. Is it "why do people gerrymander?" or "gerrymandering doesn't exist"? No, it is asking if it is short-sighted. That implies a gain is made in the immediate future.

So, thanks for your wonderful contributions to this thread of nothing more than insults and irrelevant soapbox drivel, proving you, yet again, at best, you cannot read and/or think, and at worst, pretend not to.
Every post you have made shows you do not understand the question asked.
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 11:36:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
kaoss, if you can provide some kind of evidence to show that gerrymandering will result in a loss in the future, more often that it produces a gain for the party then I'll gladly leave you alone.

But before you try to do that just acknowledge that you had come to the correct conclusion in your OP.

You were just being way too simplistic. Here's a question for you now. Is simplicity synonymous with stupidity? I think it is in some cases!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 11:41:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 4:05:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:20:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:06:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:01:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.

If the state was so heavily red, then why do they need to gerrymander at all?
But, I see your point. They can spread out the risk and weaken the opposition equally.

Is gerrymandering common in strongholds or just in close areas?
I live in a purple state and there was talks of gerrymandering, which would seem more like my example. And between the dynamics of immigration, emigration, and population and/or view changes, it seems dangerous, especially when only done every 10 years. (every year I could see, because you'd just redistrict to your advantage every year)

Gerrymandering is common everywhere, but more so in strongholds. Demographically speaking, almost all states would be purple, but gerrymandering, on part of both the republicans and the democrats, have made it so that only 35 true swing districts remain in existence, according to DR. Alan Abramowitz.

It seems this is most problematic where there is a stronghold, though. Very problematic.
In the closer races, though, am I right to assume it weakens other districts, to the point that in ten years, they may have cost themselves that seat?

How does one combat this?

That is a very tough question. Gerrymandering has been around for almost as long as the states have themselves. It is a very difficult situation all around, for everyone.

Pretty easy question really. Gerrymandering would more likely strengthen all the ridings concerned for the party that is attempting it for dishonest gain. That is because incumbents are more likely to be reelected. Kaoss seems to be imagining something that he's not talking about but more likely, it's probably a cheap and tawdry defence of the Republican party that has taken part in the practice.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 2:51:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 11:41:08 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/6/2014 4:05:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:20:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:06:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/6/2014 2:01:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 1:40:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Gerrymandering is a little more nuanced than you describe. Consider the case of a heavily red state, in which the districts are guaranteed to be gerrymandered to the reds advantage every time.

If the state was so heavily red, then why do they need to gerrymander at all?
But, I see your point. They can spread out the risk and weaken the opposition equally.

Is gerrymandering common in strongholds or just in close areas?
I live in a purple state and there was talks of gerrymandering, which would seem more like my example. And between the dynamics of immigration, emigration, and population and/or view changes, it seems dangerous, especially when only done every 10 years. (every year I could see, because you'd just redistrict to your advantage every year)

Gerrymandering is common everywhere, but more so in strongholds. Demographically speaking, almost all states would be purple, but gerrymandering, on part of both the republicans and the democrats, have made it so that only 35 true swing districts remain in existence, according to DR. Alan Abramowitz.

It seems this is most problematic where there is a stronghold, though. Very problematic.
In the closer races, though, am I right to assume it weakens other districts, to the point that in ten years, they may have cost themselves that seat?

How does one combat this?

That is a very tough question. Gerrymandering has been around for almost as long as the states have themselves. It is a very difficult situation all around, for everyone.

Pretty easy question really. Gerrymandering would more likely strengthen all the ridings concerned for the party that is attempting it for dishonest gain. That is because incumbents are more likely to be reelected. Kaoss seems to be imagining something that he's not talking about but more likely, it's probably a cheap and tawdry defence of the Republican party that has taken part in the practice.

For the record, you realize you didn't answer the "pretty easy question", right?
So, please, answer it. How do you combat gerrymandering?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 2:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 11:36:56 AM, monty1 wrote:
kaoss, if you can provide some kind of evidence to show that gerrymandering will result in a loss in the future, more often that it produces a gain for the party then I'll gladly leave you alone.
Risk of loss =/= loss.
In my simple scenario, all it would take is one republican to convert to democrat in each of the two western quadrants.
As I said in the OP, is the risk really worth it?
Redistricting occurs every ten years. A lot can change.

But before you try to do that just acknowledge that you had come to the correct conclusion in your OP.

You were just being way too simplistic. Here's a question for you now. Is simplicity synonymous with stupidity? I think it is in some cases!
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 7:28:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 2:53:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/8/2014 11:36:56 AM, monty1 wrote:
kaoss, if you can provide some kind of evidence to show that gerrymandering will result in a loss in the future, more often that it produces a gain for the party then I'll gladly leave you alone.
Risk of loss =/= loss.
In my simple scenario, all it would take is one republican to convert to democrat in each of the two western quadrants.
As I said in the OP, is the risk really worth it?
Redistricting occurs every ten years. A lot can change.

But before you try to do that just acknowledge that you had come to the correct conclusion in your OP.

You were just being way too simplistic. Here's a question for you now. Is simplicity synonymous with stupidity? I think it is in some cases!

Yep, the risk is worth it and it's proven statistically. It's done because it's an effective way of cheating the electorate of expressing their preference. Much too simplistic to pursue any further other than to say it's batsh-t crazy far right thinking to say it's not worth it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 9:57:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 7:28:13 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 2:53:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/8/2014 11:36:56 AM, monty1 wrote:
kaoss, if you can provide some kind of evidence to show that gerrymandering will result in a loss in the future, more often that it produces a gain for the party then I'll gladly leave you alone.
Risk of loss =/= loss.
In my simple scenario, all it would take is one republican to convert to democrat in each of the two western quadrants.
As I said in the OP, is the risk really worth it?
Redistricting occurs every ten years. A lot can change.

But before you try to do that just acknowledge that you had come to the correct conclusion in your OP.

You were just being way too simplistic. Here's a question for you now. Is simplicity synonymous with stupidity? I think it is in some cases!

Yep, the risk is worth it and it's proven statistically. It's done because it's an effective way of cheating the electorate of expressing their preference. Much too simplistic to pursue any further other than to say it's batsh-t crazy far right thinking to say it's not worth it.

Oh, my, are you actually being productive now? Good.
I wouldn't know how successful the gerrymandering is, since it requires both accusations and success, then taking into consideration demographics over the same time (since gerrymandering could also have had zero effect), and I don't fell compelled to do the research over decades.
The fact that it is currently in practice (assuming we believe the accusations) is proof enough that it is believed to retain power, regardless of its actual success or necessity. Hence, my question.

Out of curiosity, why do you attribute gerrymandering to the right only?
What evidence do you have to suggest only they do it?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 12:54:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
kayoss, you silly boy, I don't equate it solely to the right. There are probably lots of instances where the left did it too. In fact, I'm aware of some in my hometown. What I'm saying is that what is motivating you to talk silly is the gerrymandering that took place in your house of reps.

No, you certainly don't have any idea if it's been a successful practice or a losing practice. You entered into this totally unprepared to make any sort of a reasonable argument for or against.

Not only were you being too simplistic, as you stated, you were doing what amounted to meaningless babbling.

But it's not too late! You can educate yourself on your topic and then give us examples of it failing or succeeding. You may even attract some interest to this ridiculous notion of yours!

I'm afraid I've about run out of patience with you.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 1:11:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I see gerrymandering ONE MORE TIME on this site, I'm gonna go crazy xD
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ertdfg
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 1:21:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 4:45:46 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/6/2014 12:50:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 12:28:06 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:46:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM, monty1 wrote:

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.
More insults....
This is a nuanced topic, since I am addressing a very specific aspect. But, I wouldn't expect you to see past your own bigoted hate.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?

What fantasy?
Either gerrymandering is an effort to pick up seats while weakening other districts or not.

Your fantasy that gerrymandering is short sighted. Do you even think things out before you start votiming out your nonsense? Isn't it evidently plain to you that gerrymandering is done to gain advantages?

brother!
I see you read as well in this thread as you do in the other.
I said in the OP it is done to gain advantages, as in votes/seats.
I am trying to understand the logic of it, because it seems like they get this advantage by threatening their races by weakening their leads.

Quote:
To me, it seems to balance out, since the myopic seat grab jeopardizes their long term success. And, it's not like people don't move. So, I don't see the big issue of redistricting in the long run.

How is this not acknowledging the reason for it, and not showing my confusion?
How about instead of being a jerk, you explain why, in the long run, it is still beneficial for them, since that is what I am asking?
Or, do you not understand a straight forward question, in addition to explicit assertions and nuanced arguments?

I would tell you that the amount one wins by isn't as important as just winning a number of seats but I'm sure you're not going to understand that either.

So in a 55/45 state you'd recommend going 55/45 in every district to win every seat? Good plan.

Until you get a bad "wave" election and lose every seat... because you thinned out your support.

Then the amount by which you padded your seats in your favor makes a huge difference, and packing a single district for the opposition would have been more clever leaving you a margin sufficient to hold most seats.

I'd explain further, but you seem unwilling or unable to think about the topic at all except for calling people names.

You seem convinced that voter preferences and voter turnout are static and never change... how do we get Presidents from different parties given your assumptions? Did we get different voters in 2000 than in 1996? Do we really have that different a country now?

Oh never mind; I'm sure you'll just call people names and refuse to think about the topic you're so certian you know so well.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 1:58:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 1:21:39 PM, ertdfg wrote:
At 3/6/2014 4:45:46 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/6/2014 12:50:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/6/2014 12:28:06 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:46:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:22:06 PM, monty1 wrote:

Very simplistic and it seems you are involved in fairy tales and twisted thinking. It's not worth my time to comment on that any further.
More insults....
This is a nuanced topic, since I am addressing a very specific aspect. But, I wouldn't expect you to see past your own bigoted hate.

But maybe you can get a few righties to help you slobber over the fantasy?

What fantasy?
Either gerrymandering is an effort to pick up seats while weakening other districts or not.

Your fantasy that gerrymandering is short sighted. Do you even think things out before you start votiming out your nonsense? Isn't it evidently plain to you that gerrymandering is done to gain advantages?

brother!
I see you read as well in this thread as you do in the other.
I said in the OP it is done to gain advantages, as in votes/seats.
I am trying to understand the logic of it, because it seems like they get this advantage by threatening their races by weakening their leads.

Quote:
To me, it seems to balance out, since the myopic seat grab jeopardizes their long term success. And, it's not like people don't move. So, I don't see the big issue of redistricting in the long run.

How is this not acknowledging the reason for it, and not showing my confusion?
How about instead of being a jerk, you explain why, in the long run, it is still beneficial for them, since that is what I am asking?
Or, do you not understand a straight forward question, in addition to explicit assertions and nuanced arguments?

I would tell you that the amount one wins by isn't as important as just winning a number of seats but I'm sure you're not going to understand that either.

So in a 55/45 state you'd recommend going 55/45 in every district to win every seat? Good plan.

Until you get a bad "wave" election and lose every seat... because you thinned out your support.

Then the amount by which you padded your seats in your favor makes a huge difference, and packing a single district for the opposition would have been more clever leaving you a margin sufficient to hold most seats.

I'd explain further, but you seem unwilling or unable to think about the topic at all except for calling people names.

You seem convinced that voter preferences and voter turnout are static and never change... how do we get Presidents from different parties given your assumptions? Did we get different voters in 2000 than in 1996? Do we really have that different a country now?

Oh never mind; I'm sure you'll just call people names and refuse to think about the topic you're so certian you know so well.

Good ertdfg, a concrete attempt at a debate! Much more than kaoss has offered up so far! I'll deal with your points: In a 55/45 state I wouldn't recommend going 55/45 to win every seat. If I was dishonest and subscribed to the practice I would only gerrymander districts to ensure that I would win every seat. But I would only do it to the point where I could claim to be credible to at least a majority of voters. And then after I had won every seat I would be feeling pretty secure in holding them because of the advantage of incumbency. I'm unaware of any evidence that says otherwise. He seems to want to keep that a secret from us so far.

Bad wave elections happen regardless of gerrymandering attempts. You aren't supplying any evidence to show that my gerrymandering has made it worse. I would contend that I have limited the bad results. And in fact, it appears that is what happened in your house of reps. Gerrymandering saved the day for the Repub cheaters.

If you want to talk about presidential elections then you'll have to give me some kind of example of the practice making a difference. I'm quite sure you can easily do that but I need to hear of it.

And finally, I'm pleased to hear that somebody is willing to stand behind kaoss and his goofy idea which he didn't think out at all. But maybe he'll pick up on your ideas and show up lately? You've given him something to talk about now, albeit weak evidence at best.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 2:21:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 1:58:52 PM, monty1 wrote:

And finally, I'm pleased to hear that somebody is willing to stand behind kaoss and his goofy idea which he didn't think out at all. But maybe he'll pick up on your ideas and show up lately? You've given him something to talk about now, albeit weak evidence at best.

You are aware I described this EXACT thing in my hypothetical you nitwit, right?
The two western quadrants have a 1 vote margin for victory in my example. How is that a new development that he said 55/45?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 2:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 12:54:02 PM, monty1 wrote:
kayoss, you silly boy, I don't equate it solely to the right. There are probably lots of instances where the left did it too.
That's funny, because you keep saying it is the right.

In fact, I'm aware of some in my hometown. What I'm saying is that what is motivating you to talk silly is the gerrymandering that took place in your house of reps.
My house?
I am unaware of any redistricting in my state this last census.

No, you certainly don't have any idea if it's been a successful practice or a losing practice. You entered into this totally unprepared to make any sort of a reasonable argument for or against.
Unprepared? I gave an example to illustrate that you gut support and asked a simple question, if it is wise in the long term. There was no evidence needed as I had no side.

Not only were you being too simplistic, as you stated, you were doing what amounted to meaningless babbling.
Oh, but saying that 55/45 is too thin is most excellent debate? Got it.
Heaven forbid a one vote margin in a simple example to show exactly what I was talking about with hyperbole to get my point accross was to complicated for you?
Oh, wait, no. It wasn't my OP that was idiotic, it was your labeling, namecalling, and condescention about some grander argument you THOUGHT I was making, which I wasn't.

But it's not too late! You can educate yourself on your topic and then give us examples of it failing or succeeding. You may even attract some interest to this ridiculous notion of yours!
Why would I? It was meant to discuss if it was a good idea.
Even if it has a 100% success rate, it doesn't mean there isn't a risk.
And the risk assessment is what I was asking about.

I'm afraid I've about run out of patience with you.
You never had any patience with me, since you automatically assumed I am a racist murderer, given our first exchange. You don't actually think about what I say, you just respond like the emotional tool you are. And now you assume you have some idea of who I am and what I believe without any evidence, except the one or two examples of disagreement that you extrapolate an entire personality from.
You are pathetic.
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 2:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 2:33:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/9/2014 12:54:02 PM, monty1 wrote:
kayoss, you silly boy, I don't equate it solely to the right. There are probably lots of instances where the left did it too.
That's funny, because you keep saying it is the right.

In fact, I'm aware of some in my hometown. What I'm saying is that what is motivating you to talk silly is the gerrymandering that took place in your house of reps.
My house?
I am unaware of any redistricting in my state this last census.

No, you certainly don't have any idea if it's been a successful practice or a losing practice. You entered into this totally unprepared to make any sort of a reasonable argument for or against.
Unprepared? I gave an example to illustrate that you gut support and asked a simple question, if it is wise in the long term. There was no evidence needed as I had no side.

Not only were you being too simplistic, as you stated, you were doing what amounted to meaningless babbling.
Oh, but saying that 55/45 is too thin is most excellent debate? Got it.
Heaven forbid a one vote margin in a simple example to show exactly what I was talking about with hyperbole to get my point accross was to complicated for you?
Oh, wait, no. It wasn't my OP that was idiotic, it was your labeling, namecalling, and condescention about some grander argument you THOUGHT I was making, which I wasn't.

But it's not too late! You can educate yourself on your topic and then give us examples of it failing or succeeding. You may even attract some interest to this ridiculous notion of yours!
Why would I? It was meant to discuss if it was a good idea.
Even if it has a 100% success rate, it doesn't mean there isn't a risk.
And the risk assessment is what I was asking about.

I'm afraid I've about run out of patience with you.
You never had any patience with me, since you automatically assumed I am a racist murderer, given our first exchange. You don't actually think about what I say, you just respond like the emotional tool you are. And now you assume you have some idea of who I am and what I believe without any evidence, except the one or two examples of disagreement that you extrapolate an entire personality from.
You are pathetic.

Blah, blah, blah, and blah. Jeezuz kid, you don't seem to even understand what your "house of representatives" is and so then you go on to accuse me of suggesting that I said your state was redistricted????

Children should be seen and not heard! Let somebody else take over this thread for you maybe?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 3:13:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 2:39:54 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/9/2014 2:33:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/9/2014 12:54:02 PM, monty1 wrote:
kayoss, you silly boy, I don't equate it solely to the right. There are probably lots of instances where the left did it too.
That's funny, because you keep saying it is the right.

In fact, I'm aware of some in my hometown. What I'm saying is that what is motivating you to talk silly is the gerrymandering that took place in your house of reps.
My house?
I am unaware of any redistricting in my state this last census.

No, you certainly don't have any idea if it's been a successful practice or a losing practice. You entered into this totally unprepared to make any sort of a reasonable argument for or against.
Unprepared? I gave an example to illustrate that you gut support and asked a simple question, if it is wise in the long term. There was no evidence needed as I had no side.

Not only were you being too simplistic, as you stated, you were doing what amounted to meaningless babbling.
Oh, but saying that 55/45 is too thin is most excellent debate? Got it.
Heaven forbid a one vote margin in a simple example to show exactly what I was talking about with hyperbole to get my point accross was to complicated for you?
Oh, wait, no. It wasn't my OP that was idiotic, it was your labeling, namecalling, and condescention about some grander argument you THOUGHT I was making, which I wasn't.

But it's not too late! You can educate yourself on your topic and then give us examples of it failing or succeeding. You may even attract some interest to this ridiculous notion of yours!
Why would I? It was meant to discuss if it was a good idea.
Even if it has a 100% success rate, it doesn't mean there isn't a risk.
And the risk assessment is what I was asking about.

I'm afraid I've about run out of patience with you.
You never had any patience with me, since you automatically assumed I am a racist murderer, given our first exchange. You don't actually think about what I say, you just respond like the emotional tool you are. And now you assume you have some idea of who I am and what I believe without any evidence, except the one or two examples of disagreement that you extrapolate an entire personality from.
You are pathetic.

Blah, blah, blah, and blah. Jeezuz kid, you don't seem to even understand what your "house of representatives" is and so then you go on to accuse me of suggesting that I said your state was redistricted????

Children should be seen and not heard! Let somebody else take over this thread for you maybe?

The state is in charge of redistricting, whether it is for federal or state houses.
Further, are you going to either explain:
1. How to combat gerrymandering, since you said it was not a tough question.
2. What, exactly, was my goofy plan? All I did was say gerrymandering weakens races, which you did not seem to disagree with with Mr. 55/45. This whole thread was to ask if it was wise to risk the long term for short term seats.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 2:39:54 PM, monty1 wrote:

Children should be seen and not heard! Let somebody else take over this thread for you maybe?

And old people should be put in homes and forgotten about, since they are too senile to read correctly and contradict themselves.
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 4:14:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gerrymandering is short-sighted because Kaoss says so. There's nothing too simplistic about that cracker! He's the definition of what is, isn't, on valium!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 12:11:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All finished making an a-s of yourself kayos? I really hate to see this thread go, it served as a diversion when there was no intelligent discussion going on.