| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 74: |
Line 74: |
| | It might help to have a corollary chart that tracks gerrymandering, that is the practice of selecting and isolating minority and majority populations in districts so that there is virtually no contest at the time of election. A city can be carved up to include just enough suburban voters to overwhelm what would otherwise have been their political choice. Districts now often resemble convoluted, sinuous serpent creatures rather than geography divided along natural boudaries. If someone could write code that would redraw districts with the following parameters: number of voters, and walking distance to polling places - without regard to income, race, party designation, etc. It would change the map drastically. | | It might help to have a corollary chart that tracks gerrymandering, that is the practice of selecting and isolating minority and majority populations in districts so that there is virtually no contest at the time of election. A city can be carved up to include just enough suburban voters to overwhelm what would otherwise have been their political choice. Districts now often resemble convoluted, sinuous serpent creatures rather than geography divided along natural boudaries. If someone could write code that would redraw districts with the following parameters: number of voters, and walking distance to polling places - without regard to income, race, party designation, etc. It would change the map drastically. |
| | At any rate, many districts have been redrawn to control election results. Such a chart would parallel the divisions in congress.[[User:Bralbovsky|Bralbovsky]] ([[User talk:Bralbovsky|talk]]) 00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | | At any rate, many districts have been redrawn to control election results. Such a chart would parallel the divisions in congress.[[User:Bralbovsky|Bralbovsky]] ([[User talk:Bralbovsky|talk]]) 00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | Someone could (and probably has) come up with code to do what you suggest, but the courts won't let them use it.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | When districts are drawn without regard to race, some racial groups wind up underrepresented, because they are a substantial percentage of the total population, but are not a majority in a proportional number of districts (for example, if there are 4 districts and they are 25% of the total populations, then they should be able to elect someone from that group in 1 district, but if they are 25% of each district, then members of the other racial group, which is 75% of each district, may get elected in all 4 districts, when it should be just 3). This is considered unfair and a violation of their right to "equal protection", so districts must be drawn along racial lines to comply with court orders to give these groups fairer representation.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.190|108.162.215.190]] 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Not intending to worry anyone, but isn't it annoying that the colours are the wrong way around? In the UK we represent the Tories/Conservatives/Republicans with blue and the Labs/labour/democrats with red. This is why it fits that the social democratic reforms promoted by social communism a flown on a red flag and the working capitalists and imperial monarchists are represented by a blue flag. Why the other way round? [[User:Raydleemsc|Raydleemsc]] ([[User talk:Raydleemsc|talk]]) 08:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If this chart was about British politics, the colours would be wrong, but in US those are the standard colors for the parties. Blame mass media if you want [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states]] [[User:S42ky|S42ky]] ([[User talk:S42ky|talk]]) 18:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This is actually a pretty recent thing--and a silly one. Traditionally, each news outlet picked colors independently, and they were pretty evenly split among red for Republican or red for Democrat most years. In 2000, when the election was hung waiting on the Florida recount, everyone on TV was pointing at electoral maps on every broadcast. After two days, NBC switched colors. Other outlets began to follow suit, and once most outlets were using the same color scheme, after which pundits started talking about "red states" and "blue states" as shorthand for states where republicans or democrats won, and we've been stuck with that ever since. So, what made NBC change? Either their news director was annoyed that NBC and the Washington Post (the first paper he read in the morning) used opposite colors, or one of their pundits couldn't remember which colors they used and suggested that the alliterative red=Republican would help him stop screwing it up. Whichever of those is true is the ultimate reason red means Republican. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.180|199.27.130.180]] 12:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :It's a shame this chart doesn't get updated. It's going to need some infrared ink over the next 4 years! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Our country is now led by a GOP monopoly... :( If only Sanders had won the Democratic nomination, we might not be in this mess. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.17|108.162.238.17]] 03:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::: It would be interesting to see a more updated version of this at this point. Never understood US politics, but I'm under the impression your colour amounts would be looking different over the last few years. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.7.97|162.158.7.97]] 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
