Sunday, 8 September 2019

Files Appear to Show Gerrymandering Specialist Unconstitutionally Used Race Data to Draw Voting Maps

quote [ A North Carolina court on Tuesday struck down the state's legislative voting maps, reasoning that the current maps "do not permit voters to freely choose their representative." The court's decision hinged on evidence acquired from the computer records of Thomas Hofeller, the recently deceased GOP operative and godfather of modern-day gerrymandering, who spearheaded the state's efforts to redraw voting maps. ]

Shocking! Shocking I say! Totally unexpected!
[SFW] [politics] [+6]
[by conception@4:58pmGMT]


zenviper said @ 9:10am GMT on 9th Sep [Score:2 Funny]
I am sure a fair action will be taken to right this wrong.
snowfox said @ 9:27am GMT on 9th Sep
Does this make a substantial difference? Did we have to prove the gerrymandering was racist to overturn the SC ruling that it's ok? Is this sufficient proof that it's use is discriminatory?

I suspect, at most, it will force a redraw of the specific maps involved, and it won't be more broadly applied. This will be treated as bad gerrymandering, not proof gerrymandering is bad.
avid said @ 7:48pm GMT on 10th Sep [Score:1 Underrated]
There is a small problem that gerrymandering is sometimes used to provide minorities with a representative of their own, often on racial lines. So there's also a "good" racist gerrymander.
zarathustra said @ 2:49pm GMT on 11th Sep [Score:1 Interesting]
On its face the "good" racist gerrymander may seem okay ( it may even be done with actually good intentions) but by moving enough minorities (say NC blacks in to district 12) to allow them to elect a minority representative, you are removing them from other districts were they could have provided a margin of victory for a sympathetic, though non-minority, candidate. Removing 3 percent of the strongly democratic voters from 6 swing districts means they are sure to win the one they are concentrated in and sure to loose the 5 others.
mechanical contrivance said @ 2:58pm GMT on 11th Sep
That's what gerrymandering is all about.
snowfox said @ 5:36pm GMT on 11th Sep
So when we're not evil, we're stupid. Awesome.
hellboy said @ 2:13pm GMT on 9th Sep
Yeah, unfortunately the "gerrymandering is bad because it's racist" argument runs the risk of undermining the "gerrymandering is bad because it's fucking wrong" argument.
cb361 said @ 2:52pm GMT on 9th Sep
I always feel the same way about the ‘Torture is bad because you get unreliable intelligence’ argument.
mechanical contrivance said @ 4:36pm GMT on 9th Sep
Use whatever reasoning works.
hellboy said @ 5:02pm GMT on 9th Sep
Not if it boxes you in later by precluding a better argument.
cb361 said @ 6:38pm GMT on 9th Sep
It's more that the pragmatic argument that you shouldn't torture because it produces bad intelligence leaves you open to the counter-argument that we just need to develop more effective methods of torture.
hellboy said @ 5:05pm GMT on 9th Sep
Agreed, but that's usually used in response to "but what if torture was the ONLY WAY to get the information you needed!?" If it's the only way to get that information, it's probably not possible to get the information.
conception said @ 8:24pm GMT on 9th Sep
Devil Advocate: It's impossible to not gerrymander. All voting block decisions are in effect, gerrymandering. It's just different choices in who gets to decide those. Even if a program was written or an algorithm, someone is deciding the grouping of voters.

The problem is more probably first past the post than gerrymandering. Since there is no such thing as not gerrymandering. Just different metrics you are trying to attain.
steele said @ 12:52am GMT on 10th Sep
lol. right.

conception said @ 3:37am GMT on 10th Sep
Obviously done for political reasons. But what if that was a contiguous group of people. They were put together so they wouldn't be disenfranchised by splitting them up in "normal shapes" or whatever. Is that shape now fair? Or would it be better for an algorithm to make their voices unheard? What would be the "fair" way to divide up Austin?
steele said[1] @ 4:01am GMT on 10th Sep
But does the devil need to be advocated for when the present situation is so clearly in defiance of the very concept of democracy? Either our vote matters and the overall will of the people or the closest thing to it should be the goal with which we design our system, or this whole voting thing is a farce. Advocating that "it works both ways" kind of detracts from the point that this shit is clearly and provably being abused, don't ya think? It might be best to worry about the consequences of breathing after we've removed the devil's boot from our neck that is in many, non-metaphorical ways, killing us.
conception said @ 9:24pm GMT on 10th Sep
Sure - the advocating for the Devil is just that the "Solution" to gerrymandering is just as political as gerrymandering is in the first place. Someone is deciding winners and losers. The solution is a different system, which obviously is going to be a bigger fight.
hellboy said @ 2:11pm GMT on 9th Sep
Meanwhile Republicans have desperately filed to destroy all of this guy's evidence files because, um, privacy! Trade secrets! Shut up we're not racist, you are!

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings