I was talking about REGISTERED voters NOT who voted in this election.
Republicans are 23% pf registered voters..
Democrats are more than twice that
The rest are unaffiliated.
Who voted in a particular election is not the measure
And of course the special master did not have the after election numbers.
So he couldn't be hewing to them.
But he did have earlier elections where the percentage I cited between Republicans and Democrats are more or less following the registered voter numbers I cited
And if it i so wonderful to pit incumbents against each other then why didn't the special master do that to Republicans? Because incumbents have a better chance of being elected?
And I heartily disagree that ignoring where legislators live is to not favor them. Ignoring where they live is to actively disfavor them,...and more importantly the constituents they represent. It is the opposite of actually trying to serve the voters faithfully.
I testified at the hearings. First the constituents who spoke about the legislators who were representing them made it very clear that that these legislators knew their districts and they endeavored mightily to help them. So I think it is just a false platitude of redistricting that ignoring where legislators live is attentive to the needs of the community. It is really just the opposite.
This special master divided Manhattan north to south. Never in its entire history had this ever been done! It was always divided east by west. By the way he ignored and violated every criteria of communities of interest....subway lines, bus lines, school districts, police stations, water pipes, community boards... there is NO SUBWAY LINE GOING across Central Park. If 10% of the people in that new district thought that was good for them I would would be shocked. It also meant that one powerful and influential Democrat would lose a seat. That seemed to be feature and not a bug. And the rationale the special master gave amounted to "so what"
I do want to say that in testifying and the questions I was asked by the commissioners, especially the Republicans, made it clear they were not operating in good faith. They knew they could obstruct and delay and never have to compromise on a bipartisan map. Why Because unlike every other redistricting commission I know of...NY had an even number. of people....10 members. A commission designed for deadlock. The Republicans had all along planned to forum shop for an upstate Republican judge ( in NY judges are elected on party lines) to overturn the legislature's maps.
The remedial map is not a partisan gerrymander, and it replaces a partisan gerrymander. Today’s post is unconcerned with the horserace question of who gained seats from a court battle, so long as that process moved toward what a party-blind outcome would produce. There are metrics for this. New York scores as a zero-seat difference.
I was not providing misleading information
I was talking about REGISTERED voters NOT who voted in this election.
Republicans are 23% pf registered voters..
Democrats are more than twice that
The rest are unaffiliated.
Who voted in a particular election is not the measure
And of course the special master did not have the after election numbers.
So he couldn't be hewing to them.
But he did have earlier elections where the percentage I cited between Republicans and Democrats are more or less following the registered voter numbers I cited
And if it i so wonderful to pit incumbents against each other then why didn't the special master do that to Republicans? Because incumbents have a better chance of being elected?
And I heartily disagree that ignoring where legislators live is to not favor them. Ignoring where they live is to actively disfavor them,...and more importantly the constituents they represent. It is the opposite of actually trying to serve the voters faithfully.
I testified at the hearings. First the constituents who spoke about the legislators who were representing them made it very clear that that these legislators knew their districts and they endeavored mightily to help them. So I think it is just a false platitude of redistricting that ignoring where legislators live is attentive to the needs of the community. It is really just the opposite.
This special master divided Manhattan north to south. Never in its entire history had this ever been done! It was always divided east by west. By the way he ignored and violated every criteria of communities of interest....subway lines, bus lines, school districts, police stations, water pipes, community boards... there is NO SUBWAY LINE GOING across Central Park. If 10% of the people in that new district thought that was good for them I would would be shocked. It also meant that one powerful and influential Democrat would lose a seat. That seemed to be feature and not a bug. And the rationale the special master gave amounted to "so what"
I do want to say that in testifying and the questions I was asked by the commissioners, especially the Republicans, made it clear they were not operating in good faith. They knew they could obstruct and delay and never have to compromise on a bipartisan map. Why Because unlike every other redistricting commission I know of...NY had an even number. of people....10 members. A commission designed for deadlock. The Republicans had all along planned to forum shop for an upstate Republican judge ( in NY judges are elected on party lines) to overturn the legislature's maps.
There is a lot to say about New York’s redistricting process and the problems it encountered. Review here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-new-yorks-redistricting
The remedial map is not a partisan gerrymander, and it replaces a partisan gerrymander. Today’s post is unconcerned with the horserace question of who gained seats from a court battle, so long as that process moved toward what a party-blind outcome would produce. There are metrics for this. New York scores as a zero-seat difference.