Texas
 

Again, it is the study of the small number who turnover that is interesting; in the absence of these individual acts of Gerrymandering, the turnover would be remarkably lower.

In the state I am most familiar with, in the past 20 years there have been four turnovers due to death, four resulting from competitive races after district changes, one from an indictment, and two from voluntary departures. Of the four resulting from competitive races, two were inevitable (the state lost seats), and two were clearly engineered. In the inevitable ones, in each case the party out of power in the state lost the seat. So this informal study says that a large percentage of the total turnover relates to the manner lines are drawn.

During this entire time, the competitive races have occurred after a death (once), a redistricting (thrice) and an indictment. The other races were essentially handing of the batons to carefully picked successors.

Texas
 

Here's my issue with this analysis--you're conflating two effects, with no way to determine which is causative.

A state has to redraw lines every 10 years because of population shifts. The only question is whether the line drawing done politically increases the victory over the baseline result that would occur by "neutral" redistricting. Spanky sez yes, because he's witnessed it.

But there's simply no real way to know. If a party is in a majority already, it's very possible that it reflects a shift within the population towards that party. So it's no surprise that redistricting would allow that party to pick up seats.

Texas
 

Ah, yes, no way to know.

That is true. But that is true of almost any political "science" question or analysis. I'll leave the true nerds to argue why it is impossible to know things in the scientific disciplines as well. And so, we argue.

Texas
 

Agreed, which is why I pointed to that paper as a reasonable attempt to shed light on the question.

Texas
 

Yeh, but I've read better stuff. It read like a masters thesis.

Texas
 

Another one, not necessarily better. (and I think the Emory guys are Ph.D. candidates, so you could be right.

One interesting conclusion is that the degree of competitiveness in a district does not closely correleate with ideological extremism. They suggest that the greater influence of teh national parties is partly to blame--that is, candidates are more closely aligned with the national views than the local views, leading to relative extremism.

Texas
 

Let me tell you about the old District 17 in Texas, which covered Midland/Odessa and Lubbock. In 2002, Cornyn and Perry got 67% and 72% of the votes in the statewide election in that district. Not exactly a close district. But Charlie Stenholm, a Democrat, kept on winning the House seat every year. He was a ranking member on the Agriculture Committee in the House, and he was really good about keeping the people in his district happy. It was decidedly NOT a Democratic district, though a Democrat kept on winning.

Ultimately, in order to get rid of Charlie Stenholm (and because Tom Craddick wanted Midland to be the epicenter of its own district), the district was torn up in the great clusterfuck of 2003 and Charlie Stenholm lost his seat, Texas lost a huge amount of seniority in a committee that is rather important to the state, and the (Washington) Republicans smugly think somehow this is a good thing.

Interestingly, when the Killer Ds returned from Albequerque in surrender in August 2003*, you would have thought that the Republicans would have immediately passed the new maps and moved on. But, there were two Republican maps. Stupid Texas House members thought that they could fight those on high. Rove/DeLay wanted to destroy District 17 without really thinking it through that maybe, just maybe, it's not a Democratic District but instead a Charlie Stenholm District. The people who've actually been to Midland/Odessa and Lubbock thought that maybe not enough thought had been put into that part of the map.

Suddenly everyone realized that if a map wasn't passed by October 14, then it wouldn't be ready in time for the 2004 primary, and the whole point of the brouhaha would have been moot. So Tom DeLay flew to Austin in October 2003 to twist some arms and the maps were passed more or less exactly how he envisioned them.

ETA article by Charlie Stenholm reflecting on this 26 years in the House.

And a Texas Blogger's posts on redistricting

*Mini timeline:
Early may 2003, Republicans declare redistricting. Do not invite Democrats to the map drawing sessions, and hold hearings in the middle of the night. Democrats left entirely out of the process.

Late May 2003: In protest, 40 House Democrats flee to Ardmore, Oklahoma in order to avoid a quorum. Tom DeLay (last checked, simply a US Representative for Sugar Land, and not a member of the Texas Legislature) sends the Department of Homeland Security after them.

June 6, 2003: Biannual four and a half month regular session of the Texas Legislature ends.

July 2003: Governor declares special session for redistricting. No one can agree on anything. Special session ends.

August 2003: Governor declares a second special session for redistricting. The Democrats of the more deliberate body high tail it to Alburquerque (in my opinion a better choice than Oklahoma). John Whitmire ultimately comes back and forces a vote.

September 2003: Third special session convienes to talk about redistricting. Two maps up for debate. A house version and a version drawn by Karl Rove and Tom DeLay.

October 2003: Relaizing that they've been wasting time, Republicans get over arguing with one another over the maps and pass one.

December 2003: Under what are now suspicious circumstances, the Justice Department approves of the maps.

January 2004: Three Judge panel approves of the maps.

April 2004: Primaries under new maps.

October 2004: Supreme Court tells the three judge panel to look at the maps again in light of Vieth v. Jubelirer.

June 2005: Three judge panel looks at maps again and approves.

December 2005: Justice Department report surfaces that indicates that the Civil Rights Division at DoJ didn't like the maps at all.

December 2005: Supreme Court agrees to hear oral arguments on all of the above.

Texas
 

There's something in there for everyone, but this boils down my point: any redistricting will hurt an incumbent. An incumbent in a disfavored party can still win; a new candidate in teh wrong party can't.

Texas
 

Perhaps if you rephrased this to some incumbants, and limited it to the election after redistricting, you'd get more agreement. Clearly, the intention of redistricting is two-fold: first, to get out the disfavored reps, but also to allow favored reps to consolidate their positions. In these consolidated districts, over time, there will be a tendency to shift away from the middle, because there is less middle to contend with.

Bay Area Party Tour
 

Hmmm. The Republicans in Ft. Bend County are disavowing her.

Via Safety for Dummies

Texas
 

No, a true political scientist would know. These idiots (I read the report last night) don't know some basic political realities. You always know the party registration so you know which way the wind is blowing.

In California if the Republican Registration is above forty five percent in a district it becomes a safe Republican seat. If it drops below thirty five it becomes a safe Democrat seat. Every political consulatant knows that. There are many factors involved, turnout among Repubs is higher, Repubs cross party lines less, but that is the basid rule. There are some variables you have to factor in whether it is a rural or city district but no matter how the variables turn out the rule is pretty consistent.

Knowing these numbers, with a good gerrymandering software you can change the amount of seats your party gets by playing with the numbers.

It is very scientific and it work. There is no question. The party in power can change the number of seats they control by redrawing the lines. That is an irrefutable fact.

Texas
 

Here's the thing about masters theses: they generally need to show that you have some facility with and understand the tools of the trade, but little more. At least with a PhD thesis, someone is going to ask whether you are making an original contribution to the discipline.

But I'd like to return to my earlier question: sould the balancing act between the branches and between the federal and state governments be redrawn to move redistricting to another branch. For me, the argument for doing it now is that we have the technology available to do restricting in a way that doesn't involve crayons. Because I think a judge with crayons will show biases, even if those are not always quite as open as a hack with crayons.

So I like the idea of "shortest boundries", though I might broaden te approach, and say, "shortest boundries, provided that precincts must be unified, wards and towns should be unified (and maybe have a prearranged penalty for splitting a ward or town) and cities are best off unified if possible (maybe a bonus for keeping a city whole).

redistricting
 

On para. 1, sure. I haven't looked at the data, I haven't evaluated the statistical methods, and I don't particularly care to. Presumably someone will, and either say they sucked or that there's something there. And they'll make some additional contribution. I'm somewhat surprised that a paper that was presented nearly a year ago, and is topical and relevant, has not drawn rapid, basic criticism, which suggested to me they have something to add.

On para. 2, I don't think that's really the question. The panel of retired judges is a legislative mechanism designed to depoliticize the process. It's like the base-closing commission. But it's still in the legislative branch (until a challenge arises). Having judges, especially elected judges, make the decision is no great shakes.

On para. 3, remember that even precincts could be gerrymandered. they aren't because it doesn't matter now, but they could. But I like your modification: shortest borders using only existing political boundaries, such as town/city and county borders, or, if necessary, other boundaries, which will be counted double or triple or something. FWIW, I tried to google the mathematical solution possiblibilty. Apparently it's regarded currently as an unsolvable problem, and that approximations are the best we can do. Pretty sure computer power will change that in time, but not now.

Texas
 

Just to state the obvious, but I don't think the redrawing should be in the hands of the legislature or the chief executive. State Supreme Court, random people chosen out of the phone book, I don't care. Anybody but the legislature. I should point out that the retired judge option is used in many states, and has been used in California when there is a deadlock. The retired judges lines have always been pretty good and fair.

I think the guidelines should be following county city and precint lines as much as possible and then make them as compact as possible. But either way you will always have some subjective calls so it has to be decided by someone.

In the 1980 Gerrymander you had a district that ran all the way from Yosemite Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. For a while it the district just followed a freeway (and was no wider that the freeway). The majority leader of the California State Senate, John Burton, called it his contribution to modern art.

Texas
 

I believe there is also a way to calculate the "compactness" of a given shape, which basically boils down to how far points along the border and on lines between those points are from all other points. If you base it just on the length of the border, the model may avoid like the plague a meandering river that forms a natural boundry between two towns.

Texas
 

area/perimeter^2.

Of course, by that measure, Maine is really not that compact.

Texas
 

No, it's different than that. I think it starts by looking at the points that are farthest apart in the area and then works from there.

Texas
 

takes a formula to beat a formula. What's yours?

FWIW, under my formula, a circle is the most compact (planar) shape.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

We need a true liberal on this board (anti free trade, Pro-Cindy Sheehand and Howard Dean) and we also need a true blue conservative (pro-life, pro-gun, pro-theocracy). Anyone know any? Otherwise things might get a little dull around here.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

penske and slave hit the latter.

Texas
 

This is really academic (obviously) because getting redistricting reform through is impossible. To get it done through proposition is tough becuase the voters just don't understand it. And of course the legilature is never going to pass it. The states that have it, it was written in their consitution, or they had such a bad Gerrymander experience the people finally saw something was wrong. I think that was the case in Iowa. And as I said, in Iowa all five seats used to be a lock and now three of their five seats are swing seats.

In california some sort of refrom has been on the ballot six time since 1940 and it has never passed. The conventional wisdom was that before Arnold came along it couldn't be done. They thought he could do it with his star power but now everyone in the reform movement has agreed that it is a lost cause. And in politics perception is reality.

Finally, someone steps up to the plate.....
 

Author blasts Cruise's beliefs
By Alexa Baracaia, Evening Standard
14 December 2005
Best-selling crime writer Patricia Cornwell has attacked Hollywood star Tom Cruise, claiming his Scientology beliefs are "dangerous" and could endanger the lives of impressionable young fans.


The author said she was horrified by Cruise's dismissal of psychiatry and his claim that mental disorders are imaginary and the medication to treat them is an attempt to suppress people.

Writing on her website, Cornwell, who has studied psychiatry while researching her books, said: "There are misconceptions about psychology, especially when people out there like Tom Cruise say there's no evidence of chemical imbalance and psychiatric disorders. There's going to be some girl or boy who worships this megastar, who decides, 'I'm not going to take my anti-depressants because Tom Cruise said I don't need drugs'."

One of the key principles of the wealthy cult is the condemnation of psychiatry.

The Scientology website explains it is the duty of all members to "expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health".

Cruise has repeatedly added to the criticism. He has also railed against the use of drugs to control chemical imbalances in children.

This year he criticised Brooke Shields for her use of anti-depressants to treat post-natal depression.

Shields replied that Cruise "should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women [with] the condition decide what treatment options are best for them".

Finally, someone steps up to the plate.....
 

It is good to see that Tom Cruise has given Brooke Shields an opportunity to do her very best work. I now see that Cruise does have a function in life.

But, that is more than I can say for most of these physciatrists.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

Boy, I eat those namby pamby California dreaming do-gooder race mixing Northern Liberals for breakfast.

You got a true conservative here, but let me tell you, I'm not one of those pro-theocracy types like they have up in Massachusetts. But I am all for state's rights, and you should be, too, boy.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

I thought you were a sock?

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

What do people always malign me by reference to my garments? Look, it is what is in your head and what you do with your feet that matter, not how you cover them.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

Whether free trade is liberal or conservative has flipped around considerably as time goes on. Good luck on finding someone pro Sheehan. On the other hand, I'm fairly pro-Dean. But then again, except for his stance on Iraq, he's actually a pretty conservative Democrat.

I'm pro-education, pro-welfare, pro-science research, pro-federalism, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-privacy, pro-free speech, pro-affirmative action and pro-Fourth Amendment. Isn't that liberal enough without also having to subscribe to wacked out theories that aren't really traditionally liberal but just happen to be opposed to the current policies in place?

Texas
 

Strongly dissent.

Both parties have valid points, meritorious arguments, defensible philosophies, and laudable goals. It takes time and effort and - yes - intelligence to figure them out sometimes, but they are there. Analysis of the available information does allow people to make an informed and rational and efficacious vote.

That's all good and well for the people who read, and listen, and learn about each side's positions and rationales. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who will, instead, merely watch a few ads, read a few hot-button gotcha headlines, and then vote if they have free time after the bar. These are the people for whom Edwards fixed his hair.

It's this second group whose participation you look to increase, thus raising the value of the noise and garbage of the "lead the dummies" "stoopid school of political discourse" advertising. Do you want more elections decided by people who figure out their political affiliation by watching Leno or Michael Moore? I think that's what you get when you "get out the vote."

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

And for the former, you really want a Progressive, not a liberal.

We had one once, Pete Thottham, but then he lost his job and became an itinerant troublemaker. The true Progressive lawyers are too damn busy fighting the Man or saving the world to waste their time posting here with a bunch of soft-bellied lackeys.

S_A_M

Texas
 

Or Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson.

S_A_M

Texas
 

Agreed. I was artificially limiting my lists. I could have found a counterpart to Edward's hair, too.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

Actually, the True Progressives are fighting The Man and The Woman.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

Sexist fuck.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

What exactly are "states' rights"?

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

Wrong. True Progressives believe that The Man has made it impossible for The Woman to exist.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

What does that mean?

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

I think it means he's anti-Federalist Society.

Texas
 

the problem is that many intelligent people are not voting. Generally the way it works is if you think things are really screwed up you vote. If you don't mind the status quo then you don't vote.

So politicians, to get elected have to appeal to the people that think the country is screwed up. Since only the extremists are voting, the politicians are all turning into extremists.

They do it in Australia and it doesn't seem to have screwed that country up. Their economy is booming. Education system is fine. etc.

Real Liberal and Conservative wanted...
 

What I find funny about the Federalist society is that their mascot is James Madison, yet he opposed the Federalists. He was a Repub-Democrat like Jefferson. Their mascot should be Alexander Hamilton.

Not only did he contribute to the Federalist papers but he was a leading Federalist.

Voting
 

Why would you want to force people, who can't be bothered either to walk past the polling station or request an absentee ballot, to vote in an election. At best, you piss people off; at worst, you end up with even more random results.

BTW, interesting study in switzerland, which you shouldn't bother to read, suggests that making voting easier by allowing vote-by-mail and vote-by-email/internet reduces participation, because people don't get the opportunity to display their civic-mindedness by going to a polling place. Would people vote if they didn't get one of these to wear to work?

http://members.aol.com/darkbookgrrl/ivoted.jpg

(btw, I once got into an argument with a poll monitor when I refused to put on the sticker--yes, I refust to hwear the sticker)