"The Supreme Court’s attacks on voting rights are about rigging elections for Republicans," said Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
States have limits on what they can do. They cannot disenfranchise voters which is what gerrymandering does. The US government would have companies bid on a computer districting program. The winning program would be subject to peer review by university computer science professors to ensure the integrity of the program. All states would be required to use the program. In contrast, you have no solution to forcing states to adopt independent redistricting commission. Also, these states would probably fill the commission with biased people.
Yes, states have limits on what they can do. But gerrymandering is not something that’s limited, unless the state itself does something to prevent it. Gerrymandering is wrong, correct, but that’s not the same thing as the limits on federal powers that are enshrined in the Constitution which rightfully prevent the federal government from interfering in elections.
The US government would have companies bid on a computer districting program.
That’s a terrible idea. The business class already has an outsized influence on US politics, we don’t need to give them the power to (indirectly) draw congressional maps by writing a computer program that every state is forced to use.
The winning program would be subject to peer review by university computer science professors to ensure the integrity of the program.
That’s not how politics in the US works
That’s not how the peer-review system works
It’s still not infallible or immune to co-optation and corruption
Computer science professors know nothing about politics, human rights, political enfranchisement, or anything of the sort, and do not have the requisite knowledge to determine what weights and measures to include in an algorithm to ensure the most fairness, even if they give a shit about fairness, which they probably don’t.
All states would be required to use the program.
This is where you go from “wrong” to “disastrously wrong.”
I’ve already explained this multiple times to you, so maybe all caps will help.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT DICTATE HOW STATES RUN THEIR ELECTIONS.
That would be overtly unconstitutional. You cannot “require” states to use your special algorithm that you promise is totally fair!
In contrast, you have no solution to forcing states to adopt independent redistricting commission.
Because that would be unconstitutional.
Also, these states would probably fill the commission with biased people.
That isn’t what an independent commission is. These commissions are non-partisan. The whole point is that partisan legislatures can’t stack them with biased people.
The Supreme Court has determined that partisan gerrymandering is acceptable because there is no means to determine that the redistricting is partisan. However, a computer program is definitely not partisan and consequently, can be imposed on states.
The only inputs a computer program need is the boundaries of the state, the population size, where people live, and the number of districts desired. How can such a program be biased?
How can it be assured that the commissions are nonpartisan?
This Supreme Court?!? Of course they ruled to allow gerrymandering. Most gerrymandered states are controlled by republican legislatures. It’s no surprise the Scotus would let thise legislatures keep drawing their own congressional maps.
Typically it’s up to the state courts to declare those maps to be illegally gerrymandered. That happened in Ohio, but the legislature ignored the ruling and somehow held elections with those illegal maps. But it’s up to the state to sort that out.
a computer program is definitely not partisan
A computer program absolutely can be partisan, if it’s designed by someone who’s partisan.
and consequently, can be imposed on states
No it can’t. That’s not how the constitution works, you thick-skulled looby.
The only inputs a computer program need is the boundaries of the state, the population size, where people live, and the number of districts desired. How can such a program be biased?
Clearly you don’t know how gerrymandering works if you don’t realize there’s still room within those constraints for partisan fuckery.
How can it be assured that the commissions are nonpartisan?
This question is moot because a majority of states have already successfully implemented it. You wanna know how they did about it, go read about it instead of armchair politicking.
What inputs would you manipulate to make the program partisan? Once the state is entered, the program will know the state’s boundaries and number of districts. Population size and locations could probably be extracted from the US census data base.
Do you not realize that there are still multiple ways to slice that pie?
The whole point of gerrymandering is to split up opposition strongholds (typically blue areas in red states, i.e. cities) and attach them piecemeal to larger-by-area districts with lower population densities in order to water down their votes in redder districts.
That way instead of a city having one or two reps who are blue and can actually represent their constituencies, you have a bunch of tiny slivers of that city that are represented by the reps for the rural districts they’re attached to. It’s how republicans have disenfranchised urban voters for a long time. And yes, there’s a heavily racial subtext to this, since urban areas tend to be more non-white than rural areas. It’s how republicans disenfranchise non-white voters.
A computer program can still do the same thing. That doesn’t solve gerrymandering.
States have limits on what they can do. They cannot disenfranchise voters which is what gerrymandering does. The US government would have companies bid on a computer districting program. The winning program would be subject to peer review by university computer science professors to ensure the integrity of the program. All states would be required to use the program. In contrast, you have no solution to forcing states to adopt independent redistricting commission. Also, these states would probably fill the commission with biased people.
Yes, states have limits on what they can do. But gerrymandering is not something that’s limited, unless the state itself does something to prevent it. Gerrymandering is wrong, correct, but that’s not the same thing as the limits on federal powers that are enshrined in the Constitution which rightfully prevent the federal government from interfering in elections.
That’s a terrible idea. The business class already has an outsized influence on US politics, we don’t need to give them the power to (indirectly) draw congressional maps by writing a computer program that every state is forced to use.
This is where you go from “wrong” to “disastrously wrong.”
I’ve already explained this multiple times to you, so maybe all caps will help.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT DICTATE HOW STATES RUN THEIR ELECTIONS.
That would be overtly unconstitutional. You cannot “require” states to use your special algorithm that you promise is totally fair!
Because that would be unconstitutional.
That isn’t what an independent commission is. These commissions are non-partisan. The whole point is that partisan legislatures can’t stack them with biased people.
The Supreme Court has determined that partisan gerrymandering is acceptable because there is no means to determine that the redistricting is partisan. However, a computer program is definitely not partisan and consequently, can be imposed on states.
The only inputs a computer program need is the boundaries of the state, the population size, where people live, and the number of districts desired. How can such a program be biased?
How can it be assured that the commissions are nonpartisan?
This Supreme Court?!? Of course they ruled to allow gerrymandering. Most gerrymandered states are controlled by republican legislatures. It’s no surprise the Scotus would let thise legislatures keep drawing their own congressional maps.
Typically it’s up to the state courts to declare those maps to be illegally gerrymandered. That happened in Ohio, but the legislature ignored the ruling and somehow held elections with those illegal maps. But it’s up to the state to sort that out.
A computer program absolutely can be partisan, if it’s designed by someone who’s partisan.
No it can’t. That’s not how the constitution works, you thick-skulled looby.
Clearly you don’t know how gerrymandering works if you don’t realize there’s still room within those constraints for partisan fuckery.
This question is moot because a majority of states have already successfully implemented it. You wanna know how they did about it, go read about it instead of armchair politicking.
What inputs would you manipulate to make the program partisan? Once the state is entered, the program will know the state’s boundaries and number of districts. Population size and locations could probably be extracted from the US census data base.
Do you not realize that there are still multiple ways to slice that pie?
The whole point of gerrymandering is to split up opposition strongholds (typically blue areas in red states, i.e. cities) and attach them piecemeal to larger-by-area districts with lower population densities in order to water down their votes in redder districts.
That way instead of a city having one or two reps who are blue and can actually represent their constituencies, you have a bunch of tiny slivers of that city that are represented by the reps for the rural districts they’re attached to. It’s how republicans have disenfranchised urban voters for a long time. And yes, there’s a heavily racial subtext to this, since urban areas tend to be more non-white than rural areas. It’s how republicans disenfranchise non-white voters.
A computer program can still do the same thing. That doesn’t solve gerrymandering.