Millennial Non-Voters

[forgetful]

It's definitely gerrymandered, but I don't think it's as significantly gerrymandered as implied. Each district has to have as close to 711,000 voting citizens in it as possible while taking into to consideration convenience and avoiding any blatant demographic pooling.

The population of the 5 districts is then approximately 3,555,000 with Austin making up 1,000,000 of that. If I assume Austin is a 90/10 split between D/R and that the outlying areas are an 20/80 split between D/R that means in the 5 districts there are roughly 1,308,800 Dems and 2,246200 Repubs.

If you maximize the number of Dem districts (at least 370,000 Ds in a district) the max you can come up with is 3 out of 5 and the 2 other districts would be heavily Repub (leaving 99,400 Dems in each of the remaining 2 districts). If you maximize for the most competitive districts(355,500 of each party in a district) you get 3 competitive districts and 2 districts that are a 20/80 split between D/R. All of this ignores the demographic mix and/or convenience elements (though I'd say the current map is really light on "convenience" for Austin voters)

Bottom line, I think gerrymandering there has resulted in a net "steal" of 1 district for Repubs from Dems....which isn't inconsequential but it also isn't some sort of cataclysm either. This is where policy and pooling matter....you have to find ways to reduce the ratio in the outlying areas by policy positions or distribute population better so it's not pooled.

Obviously this is all illustrative and isn't intended to say gerrymandering isn't an issue but that it isn't some sort of grand cause of the issues in the body politic currently.

Your analysis makes a lot of assumptions that aide in proving your point.  The actuality is that much of the population that is voting GOP, that is gerrymandered into these districts, more naturally fit in districts that are already represented by a GOP member. 

If you divided it along rational lines, strictly based on convenience and satisfying demographic rules, the Dems would win every one of those seats (or at the very least 4 out of 5).

[Pakuni]

The hypothesis of that article is different than the hypothesis of Benny's position. The article frames mandatory voting within the construct of a two party system and assumes if compelled to vote those would be the only choices. Benny's position is that mandatory voting lowers the barriers of entry for third party candidates because turn out the vote operations which is the mainstays of the modern political parties is much different than advocating for a candidate within a monolithic voting public.

Cited within that article is the study linked below. Among its findings:

"Interestingly, the third parties rarely make significant gains in our estimates for 100% turnout. While this could conceivably be a function of the lower number of votes that third-party candidates garner in the first place, even in 1992 when Ross Perot received
18.5% of the votes (NES), his campaign would have benefited by only roughly a tenth of a percentage point."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31036713_A_Propensity_Score_Reweighting_Approach_to_Estimating_the_Partisan_Effects_of_Full_Turnout_in_American_Presidential_Elections

[GGGG]

I think Benny is right to a certain extent. There is a significant pool of non-voters that don't like their bifurcated choice and so make a third choice which is simply to not participate.

I mean, third parties exist right now and are listed on almost every ballot.  The fact that people don't choose to participate, even though some of these parties may appeal to them, means they don't care enough.  I mean, I voted for a Democrat that had no chance of winning yesterday.  But at least I cared enough to do it.

[mu03eng]

Your analysis makes a lot of assumptions that aide in proving your point.  The actuality is that much of the population that is voting GOP, that is gerrymandered into these districts, more naturally fit in districts that are already represented by a GOP member. 

If you divided it along rational lines, strictly based on convenience and satisfying demographic rules, the Dems would win every one of those seats (or at the very least 4 out of 5).

My assumptions are based on reality, we can quibble over the exact ratios which I'm happy to do, however no matter how you slice it when you look at the registration levels the outlying areas are greater than 70% republican and when you look at the 5 areas as a geographical whole there are more R voters than D voters....not sure how you can construct a model where you meet the population size requirement and still distribute voters so the 5 districts turn blue. You seem to indicate that we take R voters out of those districts and move them into other districts....fine, but what do you do with the population that's in that district already, it has to go somewhere else.

Bottom line, the number of districts and the population within each district is fixed. There are only so many permutations that result in a greater balance and none of them include turning all 5 districts in question blue. It's math.

[mu03eng]

Cited within that article is the study linked below. Among its findings:

"Interestingly, the third parties rarely make significant gains in our estimates for 100% turnout. While this could conceivably be a function of the lower number of votes that third-party candidates garner in the first place, even in 1992 when Ross Perot received
18.5% of the votes (NES), his campaign would have benefited by only roughly a tenth of a percentage point."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31036713_A_Propensity_Score_Reweighting_Approach_to_Estimating_the_Partisan_Effects_of_Full_Turnout_in_American_Presidential_Elections

Yeah I'll have to deep dive that and get back to you.

[mu03eng]

I mean, third parties exist right now and are listed on almost every ballot.  The fact that people don't choose to participate, even though some of these parties may appeal to them, means they don't care enough.  I mean, I voted for a Democrat that had no chance of winning yesterday.  But at least I cared enough to do it.

And I refused to vote in the Tammy Baldwin/Leah Vukmir race yesterday because both are hot garbage IMO.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Makes sense to me. What has to happen to actually implement that change?

It appears from the article linked below it requires passage of a law.  A 1929 law capped it at 435, but there were multiple increases prior to that, so I would presume the simple passage of a new law (ha ha)

https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242

[Benny B]

Benny can claim whatever he wants, but this is wrong and the Supreme Court has said so. It's also not analogous.
The government is not forcing anyone to engage in gun ownership, and then requiring a license to do so.

When did the Supreme Court rule that compulsory voting is illegal?  [Hint: It hasn't.]

Voting is not speech.  Campaigning is speech.  Protesting candidates/incumbents is speech.  Donating to campaigns/PAC's is speech.  But going behind a curtain and casting a ballot IN SECRET... that's not protected by the First Amendment, because it isn't speech.

Jury duty is mandatory.  It is also widely considered as a constitutional duty because every American has a constitutional right to trial by jury.  So why is voting not a constitutional duty?  [Hint: It probably would have been if not for the fact that elections were heavily reliant upon voter suppression from Day 1 of our country.]  Or more importantly, why can't voting be a constitutional duty?

For the sake of argument, I'll concede for a moment that voting is compelled speech.... how then is jury duty not considered compelled speech when you are required to deliberate and be polled?

[jficke13]

When did the Supreme Court rule that compulsory voting is illegal?  [Hint: It hasn't.]

Voting is not speech.  Campaigning is speech.  Protesting candidates/incumbents is speech.  Donating to campaigns/PAC's is speech.  But going behind a curtain and casting a ballot IN SECRET... that's not protected by the First Amendment, because it isn't speech.

Jury duty is mandatory.  It is also widely considered as a constitutional duty because every American has a constitutional right to trial by jury.  So why is voting not a constitutional duty?  [Hint: It probably would have been if not for the fact that elections were heavily reliant upon voter suppression from Day 1 of our country.]  Or more importantly, why can't voting be a constitutional duty?

For the sake of argument, I'll concede for a moment that voting is compelled speech.... how then is jury duty not considered compelled speech when you are required to deliberate and be polled?

Not according to currently existing jurisprudence. Start an amendment initiative. That's, literally, what it would take for you to get what you want on this one.

Maybe you're right and everyone should be lined up and forced to vote or kicked out of the republic. I'd sure love to slip free the bonds of gravity and fly to work in my Toyota. Who cares though, under the laws that currently govern both free speech and gravity, neither compulsory voting, nor Ficke's magical antigravity car are going to work.

Lucky for you, what you want actually can come to pass. Amend the Constitution.

[MU82]

Benny, serious question ...

What would the penalty be for not voting?

[forgetful]

My assumptions are based on reality, we can quibble over the exact ratios which I'm happy to do, however no matter how you slice it when you look at the registration levels the outlying areas are greater than 70% republican and when you look at the 5 areas as a geographical whole there are more R voters than D voters....not sure how you can construct a model where you meet the population size requirement and still distribute voters so the 5 districts turn blue. You seem to indicate that we take R voters out of those districts and move them into other districts....fine, but what do you do with the population that's in that district already, it has to go somewhere else.

Bottom line, the number of districts and the population within each district is fixed. There are only so many permutations that result in a greater balance and none of them include turning all 5 districts in question blue. It's math.

Here is why your assumptions are not based on reality. 

There are 6 districts that represent the Austin Metro area, currently 5 are GOP held.  So it would total roughly 4.3 M votes.  Using actual voting numbers, 51% of that population votes democratic.  So the population distribution is roughly 2.19M Dem, 2.11M GOP.  Your assumption/numbers are way off.

There are way more than enough votes in the democratic district (votes 71% democratic) to flip everyone of the other 5 seats.

Doing the above (splitting those votes across) to flip all 5 seats would also be gerrymandering.  So, to do an accurate analysis, one has to look at neighboring districts to see what happens if you divide the populations in a manner more consistent with convenience. To do so you have to either combine districts that are right leaning moderately GOP (50-54%) with districts near Dallas that are voting either 91% democratic, 76% democratic, or 53% GOP; or districts near Houston that are voting 89% democratic, 75% democratic or 53% GOP.  Doing so wouldn't flip any of those seats, but shifting them to the Austin area, flips democratic seats considerably.

These are the facts and actual numbers.  Texas is gerrymandered.  Your analysis involves inaccurate assumptions, and incomplete data sets (need to consider neighboring districts).  When those are included it unequivocally shows the gerrymandering steals a minimum of 3 seats, that was my only point. 

I'll note that what Texas did also violates federal law by intentionally grouping minority voters into singular districts.

In the interest of this not drawing out indefinitely, I'll hang up and let you have the last word.

p.s. Please do not take any of my wording as being aggressive towards you.  They are not intended that way. I know you are a numbers/facts guy and I'm just trying to point out that in a detailed analysis your numbers and assumptions do not actually play out.

p.p.s.  Yes my analysis is incomplete, so there are ways to poke holes into it.  I leave out many details regarding neighboring districts.  A complete analysis is too cumbersome for here.  But Austin becomes the epicenter of a San Antonio-Houston-Dallas network of gerrymandering.

[MU82]

Dems flipped a whole bunch of House seats ... but none in heavily, heavily, heavily gerrymandered NC.

NC Republicans running for U.S. House seats won 50.3% of the vote ... but won 10 of the 13 seats.

That is not democracy. (And it wouldn't be if it similarly favored the Dems.)

[buckchuckler]

Benny, serious question ...

What would the penalty be for not voting?

Death, obviously.  Probably drawing and quartering.  Something gruesome.  That way it won't happen again.  Plus it will serve as warning to others. 

[mu03eng]

Here is why your assumptions are not based on reality. 

There are 6 districts that represent the Austin Metro area, currently 5 are GOP held.  So it would total roughly 4.3 M votes.  Using actual voting numbers, 51% of that population votes democratic.  So the population distribution is roughly 2.19M Dem, 2.11M GOP.  Your assumption/numbers are way off.

There are way more than enough votes in the democratic district (votes 71% democratic) to flip everyone of the other 5 seats.

Doing the above (splitting those votes across) to flip all 5 seats would also be gerrymandering.  So, to do an accurate analysis, one has to look at neighboring districts to see what happens if you divide the populations in a manner more consistent with convenience. To do so you have to either combine districts that are right leaning moderately GOP (50-54%) with districts near Dallas that are voting either 91% democratic, 76% democratic, or 53% GOP; or districts near Houston that are voting 89% democratic, 75% democratic or 53% GOP.  Doing so wouldn't flip any of those seats, but shifting them to the Austin area, flips democratic seats considerably.

These are the facts and actual numbers.  Texas is gerrymandered.  Your analysis involves inaccurate assumptions, and incomplete data sets (need to consider neighboring districts).  When those are included it unequivocally shows the gerrymandering steals a minimum of 3 seats, that was my only point. 

I'll note that what Texas did also violates federal law by intentionally grouping minority voters into singular districts.

In the interest of this not drawing out indefinitely, I'll hang up and let you have the last word.

p.s. Please do not take any of my wording as being aggressive towards you.  They are not intended that way. I know you are a numbers/facts guy and I'm just trying to point out that in a detailed analysis your numbers and assumptions do not actually play out.

p.p.s.  Yes my analysis is incomplete, so there are ways to poke holes into it.  I leave out many details regarding neighboring districts.  A complete analysis is too cumbersome for here.  But Austin becomes the epicenter of a San Antonio-Houston-Dallas network of gerrymandering.

This is really interesting stuff and obviously my initial analysis is off based on assumptions that aren't true (mind boggling no one sued over this districting because 5 out of 6 with a roughly 50/50 political split is insane). Very much intrigued and my try and grab some numbers from those districts to cement or refute my hypothesis....good stuff, thanks.

[Jockey]

Dems flipped a whole bunch of House seats ... but none in heavily, heavily, heavily gerrymandered NC.

NC Republicans running for U.S. House seats won 50.3% of the vote ... but won 10 of the 13 seats.

That is not democracy. (And it wouldn't be if it similarly favored the Dems.)

A perfect example as to why many people don't care when it comes to voting. Here is another:

Less than 24 hours after Tony Evers was elected governor, the Republican leader of the state Assembly threatened to take power away from him even before he is sworn in. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said Wednesday he would discuss whether to look at limiting Evers' power with Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). FItzgerald is open to the idea, according to an aide.  "If there are areas where we could look and say, 'Geez — have we made mistakes where we granted too much power to the executive,' I'd be open to taking a look to say what can we do to change that to try to re-balance it," Vos told reporters.
"Maybe we made some mistakes giving too much power to Gov. (Scott) Walker and I'd be open to looking at that to see if there are areas we should change that, but it's far too early to do that before I talk to Scott Fitzgerald."

Fitzgerald is willing to consider taking away some of the governor’s powers before Evers is seated, said his chief of staff, Dan Romportl.


Less than 24 hours to subvert the election results - why even bother to vote?

[rocky_warrior]

Hah, this is the first time I've clicked on this thread.  I guess I should have guessed it was political. 

Hope it was fun at least!