Gerrymandering in Virginia

#429
#429
BigOrangeMojo said:
It's grotesque...
Click to expand...
yarp. clear gerrymandering.

I can understand some of the stretching of districts to follow a river, or other boundary area, the plateau would be another. but really districts need to be as square/round as physically possible. No weird legs, or growths. where you get a couple of those squares/circles coming together some weird shapes can be allowed.

heck I would trust just dropping some colored water on a cut out of the state's population centers to be far more fair than this crap.
 
#430
#430
LouderVol said:
yarp. clear gerrymandering.

I can understand some of the stretching of districts to follow a river, or other boundary area, the plateau would be another. but really districts need to be as square/round as physically possible. No weird legs, or growths. where you get a couple of those squares/circles coming together some weird shapes can be allowed.

heck I would trust just dropping some colored water on a cut out of the state's population centers to be far more fair than this crap.
Click to expand...
The best and most objective solution would a be a law that says the ratio of the length of the district boundary to the area of the district has to be below a certain number. Make it mathematical and no one should complain (but of course someone always does). The more square a district is, the fairer it is.
 
#431
#431
Ah, looks like someone has already studied something similar (disclaimer: AI summarized)

Congressional district shapes are often measured by their compactness, which directly relates to the ratio of their perimeter length (\(P\)) to their area (\(A\)). While there is no single standardized "length to area" ratio, the Polsby-Popper test is the most common metric used to evaluate these shapes, calculating how close a district is to a circle. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • Polsby-Popper Formula: \(\frac{4\pi \times \text{Area}}{\text{Perimeter}^{2}}\). A score of 1 indicates perfect compactness (a circle), while closer to 0 indicates a less compact, often gerrymandered, district.
  • Most Compact Districts: Wyoming's single at-large district has historically been among the highest, with a score around 0.77.
  • Least Compact Districts: Oddly shaped districts, such as Louisiana's 2nd, have registered scores as low as 0.01.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#432
#432
OrangeTsar said:
Ah, looks like someone has already studied something similar (disclaimer: AI summarized)

Congressional district shapes are often measured by their compactness, which directly relates to the ratio of their perimeter length (\(P\)) to their area (\(A\)). While there is no single standardized "length to area" ratio, the Polsby-Popper test is the most common metric used to evaluate these shapes, calculating how close a district is to a circle. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • Polsby-Popper Formula: \(\frac{4\pi \times \text{Area}}{\text{Perimeter}^{2}}\). A score of 1 indicates perfect compactness (a circle), while closer to 0 indicates a less compact, often gerrymandered, district.
  • Most Compact Districts: Wyoming's single at-large district has historically been among the highest, with a score around 0.77.
  • Least Compact Districts: Oddly shaped districts, such as Louisiana's 2nd, have registered scores as low as 0.01.
Click to expand...
I like it. need to see if I can find the country wide version and see what is to be seen given a state's various scores.
 
#433
#433
rikberry31 said:
Dagum if that don't sound like every President in the past thirty years. Trump lost money in his first term and has made about 160% of his previous wealth in his second
  • Bill Clinton: ~$1.3M before → $120M+ shortly after (combined with Hillary now ~$240M+). Massive post-office earnings from speeches, books, and consulting. Highest percentage growth in modern era. Up 18000%
  • Barack Obama: ~$1.3M before → ~$70M after (with Michelle). Book deals, Netflix, speeches. Second-highest modern post-presidency surge. Up 5300%
  • George W. Bush: ~$20M before → ~$40M after. More modest gains via books, speeches, and investments. Up 100%
  • George H.W. Bush: ~$4M → ~$23M post-office. Investments and board roles. Up 475%
  • Jimmy Carter: Modest wealth (~$2M before, struggled after initially). Built to ~$10M via books; notably avoided heavy monetization and focused on humanitarian work. Put family peanut farm in trust. UP 334%
Click to expand...
IMG_4124.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and BeardedVol
#434
#434
OrangeTsar said:
Thanks for finally owning up to being a radical. As far as the direction needed; I note that you neglected the one direction we do need to go; further to the right.
Once we repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, pass national reciprocal carry, and eliminate the Education department, then maybe we can finally slow down a bit. Oh, and get rid of the monumentally authoritarian car kill switch rule going into effect next year.
Click to expand...
I read your first paragraph and stopped. Thanks for telegraphing whatever bs came after that. 🫡
 
#436
#436
BeardedVol said:
Do we get to count farm subsidies and the like?
farm.ewg.org

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.
farm.ewg.org farm.ewg.org
Click to expand...

Very fair topic to open discussion on.

More of an entity topic though as farms themselves don’t vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#439
#439
BeardedVol said:
That's really the argument you want to go with?
Click to expand...

We are specifically talking about voters, right?

I’m all for a conversation about subsidies but entities don’t vote.

You went from citizens to entities.
 
#443
#443
BigOrangeMojo said:
So, are we going to divvy up the number of districts each state gets solely by the number of income taxpayers? Red states wont like that....
Click to expand...

Apportionment should go by number of citizens, not residents. Inmates, immigrants (legal or illegal) should not count.

Fix that and then we can fix gerrymandering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, Rickyvol77, StarRaider and 2 others
#444
#444
BigOrangeMojo said:
So, are we going to divvy up the number of districts each state gets solely by the number of income taxpayers? Red states wont like that....
Click to expand...

People living on welfare should not count.

50 percent or more people who actually pay federal taxes.

Can’t be more clear about my stance.

Would mean poverty zones would be included with atleast 51 percent non poverty zones.
 
#445
#445
NEO said:
People living on welfare should not count.

50 percent or more people who actually pay federal taxes.

Can’t be more clear about my stance.

Would mean poverty zones would be included with atleast 51 percent non poverty zones.
Click to expand...

Welfare(TANF) is just a tiny percent of the 50% that doesn't pay taxes.

My stance is reality...

And even those on TANF pay taxes every time they pay utilities or fuel...
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#446
#446
BigOrangeMojo said:
The number of Americans receiving TANF is a small percentage of those that has a 0 tax liability....
Click to expand...

Zero tax liability shouldn’t vote either.

I have felt for years and said this for decades that if you have no skin in the game you have no say.

Zero tax liability also means you are at or near poverty status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#447
#447
Too lazy to go back but we're arguing that welfare recipients shouldn't count for representation purposes nor for voting, correct? Because I'm 100% on board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#448
#448
NEO said:
Zero tax liability shouldn’t vote either.

I have felt for years and said this for decades that if you have no skin in the game you have no say.

Zero tax liability also means you are at or near poverty status.
Click to expand...

Could mean you are retired

Could mean you have 2-3 kids and have child tax credits and make 50-60K a year.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top