Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 am

Kraken wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:47 pm And yes, the #MeToo thing is veering into that territory.

How so? I'm willing to entertain the idea, but I'm following along for the most part and have not seen what you describe. Please elaborate.

Plus, the idea that this politician doesn't want to meet kids because some time in the future she might be ruined is ridiculous on the face of it. First, there is no expectation that she be alone with anyone. Presumably there would be additional adults chaperoning and organizing, including her own people. Second, and this is key, don't try to get into any of their pants and you won't have your career ruined years later.

Daehawk wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:12 am He doesn't have to concede. It wont change anything. Just makes him look like more like a dick than he already does.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:39 am So election night in Virginia left the VA House of Delegates with a 51-49 GOP advantage (after a 67-33 advantage at the start of the night), with a few recounts pending. After one of those recounts, the democratic candidate is now the winner with a margin of literally one vote.

So as of now, it looks like it'll be 50-50 and the parties will have to figure out a power-sharing arrangement. There are a few more recounts, but while the margin in thin it looks like the GOP candidate is likely to hold on in each of them. There is a chance for democrats to win one more seat - basically in one of the races (where the GOP candidate leads by something like 83 votes), several hundred voters were routed to the wrong precinct by an election official. So democrats are likely to petition in court for a redo of that election - I assume that's unlikely, but who knows.

gilraen wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:34 am The estimate in the Virginia elections is that about 200k more Democrat votes were cast than Republican votes. And yet the state is so badly gerrymandered that with all that voter support Democrats still only managed to eke out a tie. It's truly sickening.

Scoop20906 wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:02 am

Daehawk wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:12 am He doesn't have to concede. It wont change anything. Just makes him look like more like a dick than he already does.

Shadow Senator?

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:16 am

gilraen wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:34 am The estimate in the Virginia elections is that about 200k more Democrat votes were cast than Republican votes. And yet the state is so badly gerrymandered that with all that voter support Democrats still only managed to eke out a tie. It's truly sickening.

To be fair, a) the state isn't *that* badly gerrymandered (the last attempt to have the district map ruled unconstitutional was shot down in the courts), and b) the Democratic party had a HUGE advantage in votes cast in unopposed races (ie races where there was only one major party candidate) by the tune of almost 344,000 votes. Republicans as a whole statewide collected more votes than Democrats in the contested races.

Paingod wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:26 am Would it be possible to make a law that says a voting district cannot have more than, say, 8 sides to its shape? Let them redistrict, but don't let them create a fiddly tiny line that slips here and there to silence opposition.

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:38 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:16 am

gilraen wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:34 am The estimate in the Virginia elections is that about 200k more Democrat votes were cast than Republican votes. And yet the state is so badly gerrymandered that with all that voter support Democrats still only managed to eke out a tie. It's truly sickening.

To be fair, a) the state isn't *that* badly gerrymandered (the last attempt to have the district map ruled unconstitutional was shot down in the courts), and b) the Democratic party had a HUGE advantage in votes cast in unopposed races (ie races where there was only one major party candidate) by the tune of almost 344,000 votes. Republicans as a whole statewide collected more votes than Democrats in the contested races.

Having a few districts where opposition support is greatly concentrated and a larger number where the governing party has a substantial advantage in support is pretty much textbook gerrymandering. It's just that gerrymandering alone won't work when there's enough of a shift in support across the board to overcome the baked-in advantage.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:53 am Intuitively it seems like the fairest way would be to agree on some neutral factors (contiguity, compactness, etc.), and then hire someone to put that into an algorithm.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:05 pm

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:38 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:16 am

gilraen wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:34 am The estimate in the Virginia elections is that about 200k more Democrat votes were cast than Republican votes. And yet the state is so badly gerrymandered that with all that voter support Democrats still only managed to eke out a tie. It's truly sickening.

To be fair, a) the state isn't *that* badly gerrymandered (the last attempt to have the district map ruled unconstitutional was shot down in the courts), and b) the Democratic party had a HUGE advantage in votes cast in unopposed races (ie races where there was only one major party candidate) by the tune of almost 344,000 votes. Republicans as a whole statewide collected more votes than Democrats in the contested races.

Having a few districts where opposition support is greatly concentrated and a larger number where the governing party has a substantial advantage in support is pretty much textbook gerrymandering. It's just that gerrymandering alone won't work when there's enough of a shift in support across the board to overcome the baked-in advantage.

So your default assumption with the results is just to say gerrymandered districts without taking into account things like voter turnout, or how Virginia's political divisions exist geographically?

For instance, my delegate, running unopposed, collected more votes by himself than many contested races did. He outgained that well publicized race between Roem and Marshall by 9,000 votes. If voters are going to turn out in heavily Democratic areas but not in other areas, how can gerrymandering be the default answer for how Virginia is in a virtual tie with so many more Democratic votes? There are more factors at play here.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:36 pm I'm not so sure about that. Northern Virginia is heavily blue. The districts up here are very compact. How are you going to convince a Republican running here is worth the effort?

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:05 pm

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:38 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:16 am

gilraen wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:34 am The estimate in the Virginia elections is that about 200k more Democrat votes were cast than Republican votes. And yet the state is so badly gerrymandered that with all that voter support Democrats still only managed to eke out a tie. It's truly sickening.

To be fair, a) the state isn't *that* badly gerrymandered (the last attempt to have the district map ruled unconstitutional was shot down in the courts), and b) the Democratic party had a HUGE advantage in votes cast in unopposed races (ie races where there was only one major party candidate) by the tune of almost 344,000 votes. Republicans as a whole statewide collected more votes than Democrats in the contested races.

Having a few districts where opposition support is greatly concentrated and a larger number where the governing party has a substantial advantage in support is pretty much textbook gerrymandering. It's just that gerrymandering alone won't work when there's enough of a shift in support across the board to overcome the baked-in advantage.

So your default assumption with the results is just to say gerrymandered districts without taking into account things like voter turnout, or how Virginia's political divisions exist geographically?

For instance, my delegate, running unopposed, collected more votes by himself than many contested races did. He outgained that well publicized race between Roem and Marshall by 9,000 votes. If voters are going to turn out in heavily Democratic areas but not in other areas, how can gerrymandering be the default answer for how Virginia is in a virtual tie with so many more Democratic votes? There are more factors at play here.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:54 pm It's not accurate to say the vote played out the way it did simply because of gerrymandering, either.

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:03 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:54 pm It's not accurate to say the vote played out the way it did simply because of gerrymandering, either.

Did anyone say that it did?

LordMortis wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:00 pm https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1 ... heir-stats

Doesn't look too bad to me, without knowing much about that big pale red strip in the middle. That pale red strip could be very telling if you could see how the cities/counties within vote differently.

Of course, when I look at our own districts, VA might not seem bad because what we have is absolutely shameful.

Kraken wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:37 am
I was extrapolating from pedophilia accusations to the whole pussy-grabber zeitgeist, and that's a false equivalency. There is a bandwagon effect with that that reminds me of the old daycare-center abuse scare, or the '70s-vintage all-men-are-potential-rapists paradigm, but it's not relevant to the case at hand.

Enough wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:23 pm Roy Moore continues to be an absolute ass. He's now going after Doug Jone's gay son.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:07 pm

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:03 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:54 pm It's not accurate to say the vote played out the way it did simply because of gerrymandering, either.

Did anyone say that it did?

Gilraen appeared to.

Although the Virginia governorship was Tuesday’s marquee race, the Virginia House of Delegates produced the day’s most surprising result. Democrats picked up at least 15 seats and reduced a 66 to 34 Republican advantage to, at most, 51 to 49. A gerrymandered chamber thought to be safely Republican suddenly became a toss-up — and may yet flip to Democratic control after all the recounts are completed.

This unexpected outcome raises the question: Can gerrymandering really be such a problem if a party’s legislative edge can virtually disappear overnight? This question is especially important at present, as the Supreme Court mulls over Gill vs. Whitford, a potentially historic case about redistricting in Wisconsin.

The question also has a clear answer: Of course gerrymandering is deeply troublesome even if it can be overcome, at least temporarily, by a wave election.

Consider the following facts about the Virginia House of Delegates: In three previous elections (2011, 2013 and 2015), Republicans won 66 or 67 out of 100 seats. Republicans maintained this supermajority even though Democrats narrowly won every statewide race over this period. To secure (roughly) half of the House seats on Tuesday, Democrats had to earn well over 50% of the statewide House vote. This was Democrats’ best showing in more than 30 years. Had Republicans done as well, they would have won far more than 50 seats: close to 70, in fact.

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:00 pmI don't think gerrymandering should be defined by how much one party or another has a major advantage in a district, I think it should be defined by the shape and compactness of districts and how well they fit in with the population densities, geographic and topographical nature of the area. Otherwise the solution would be to create districts that had as close to a 50/50 split as possible and that would introduce more problems and would be harder to address.

538 wrote:The metric at the heart of the Wisconsin case is called the efficiency gap. To calculate it, you take the difference between each party’s “wasted” votes — votes for losing candidates and votes for winning candidates beyond what the candidate needed to win — and divide that by the total number of votes cast. It’s mathematical, yes, but quite simple, and aims to measure the extent of partisan gerrymandering.

The Meal wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:58 pm

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:00 pmI don't think gerrymandering should be defined by how much one party or another has a major advantage in a district, I think it should be defined by the shape and compactness of districts and how well they fit in with the population densities, geographic and topographical nature of the area. Otherwise the solution would be to create districts that had as close to a 50/50 split as possible and that would introduce more problems and would be harder to address.

538's Gerrymandering Project.

I'm looking for (but unable to find) the specific article (not podcast) where they go into details (walk us through the algebra), but it tends to boil down to:

538 wrote:The metric at the heart of the Wisconsin case is called the efficiency gap. To calculate it, you take the difference between each party’s “wasted” votes — votes for losing candidates and votes for winning candidates beyond what the candidate needed to win — and divide that by the total number of votes cast. It’s mathematical, yes, but quite simple, and aims to measure the extent of partisan gerrymandering.

I, too, want more than just this efficiency gap (including geographic effects). But this turns out to be a decent mathy start.

The Meal wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:58 pm

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:00 pmI don't think gerrymandering should be defined by how much one party or another has a major advantage in a district, I think it should be defined by the shape and compactness of districts and how well they fit in with the population densities, geographic and topographical nature of the area. Otherwise the solution would be to create districts that had as close to a 50/50 split as possible and that would introduce more problems and would be harder to address.

538's Gerrymandering Project.

I'm looking for (but unable to find) the specific article (not podcast) where they go into details (walk us through the algebra), but it tends to boil down to:

538 wrote:The metric at the heart of the Wisconsin case is called the efficiency gap. To calculate it, you take the difference between each party’s “wasted” votes — votes for losing candidates and votes for winning candidates beyond what the candidate needed to win — and divide that by the total number of votes cast. It’s mathematical, yes, but quite simple, and aims to measure the extent of partisan gerrymandering.

I, too, want more than just this efficiency gap (including geographic effects). But this turns out to be a decent mathy start.

Efficiency Gap Equation
As an equation, the efficiency gap looks like this:

• Efficiency Gap = (Total Democratic Wasted Votes –Total Republican Wasted Votes) ÷ Total Votes

Simplified Efficiency Gap Calculation
If either party’s seat margin and vote margin for a given election are known, then the efficiency gap can also be calculated using the following formula:

• Efficiency Gap = (Seat Margin – 50%) – 2 (Vote Margin – 50%)

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:51 pm Yeah, I'm not terribly impressed with the measurement (I mean, I'm fine with using it as additional proof that districts are gerrymandered if only to show the supreme court that this is a big problem).

Using it as a measurement, seats that are won with a 75%-25% are the least gerrymandered, while those that are 51-49 or 99-1 are the most gerrymandered. While I think it might be useful in detecting a pattern across all districts together (by summing it up), I don't think it does it well for individual districts. It would also be a poor way to design the districts from scratch (since we don't know how individual people vote. And also how do you deal with people who split their votes on election day?).

Also, if you're going by wasted votes, how do you differentiate between results caused by gerrymandered districts and those caused by strong candidates (or wave elections)?

I would much rather not use any knowledge about the people when coming up with maps, except where people are located and what communities/neighborhoods/town/city they are in (since we presumably want to group people together by that, when possible).

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:44 pm But suppose you have a map with five districts that all go to one party by a 51-49 margin. Under the above system, it would rate the efficency gap as (49*5)/500 = .49, the highest you can get. But, independent of any other information, I'd be skeptical that any of districts were gerrymandered.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:00 pm

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:44 pm But suppose you have a map with five districts that all go to one party by a 51-49 margin. Under the above system, it would rate the efficency gap as (49*5)/500 = .49, the highest you can get. But, independent of any other information, I'd be skeptical that any of districts were gerrymandered.

I suspect that we're misapplying the formula here, since that can't be the right answer, for the reason you say.

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, then litigants who challenge gerrymandering must be mad. Last month, a federal court threw out the Texas Democratic Party’s claim that the state’s new congressional and state house districts are unlawful. This was the twelfth time in a row that this sort of claim has failed in the current cycle. Plaintiffs’ record of futility now spans at least three dozen cases over four decades.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Litigants keep losing these lawsuits because they keep proposing standards the courts have already rejected (such as partisan intent). They’re failing to capitalize on encouraging comments by the Supreme Court, which show that it’s open to a test based on partisan symmetry—the idea that district plans should treat the parties equally. In a forthcoming law review article, Eric McGhee and I lay out just such a test. If plaintiffs were to use it in litigation, they’d have a fighting chance at winning. And if they were to win, then the whole landscape of redistricting in America would be transformed.

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:43 pm That paper just explains how to calculate the efficiency gap, but doesn't explain how it's intended to be used.

Defiant wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:35 pm

Max Peck wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:43 pm That paper just explains how to calculate the efficiency gap, but doesn't explain how it's intended to be used.

No, I meant I read the scientific paper they wrote referred to in the above. Well, a couple of sections of it I read in depth, while I skimmed the rest, just like in school.

And while I get what they're doing, I still think geography makes for a better standard. Still, if they can do both in an attempt to show egregious gerrymandering (both show that it's geographically absurd and leads to lopsided results where many people's votes don't count) then so much the better.