Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

dsc

(52,146 posts)

15. you are assuming where you live has nothing to do with how you vote

Reply to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:16 PM

Jan 2013

and that is just not true. People in Philly had an 85% chance of voting for Obama, people outside of Philly had way less than 85% of voting for Obama. The binomial probability function can only be used if the probability doesn't change from place to place, but it clearly does. If you don't split Philly up, which I don't think your method would do, then we would have wasted votes. To a lesser extent Pittsburgh presents a similar problem. It would likely give you one district with around 70/30. Again, those votes are wasted. You can't get around it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dumb question about redistricting: [View all] MinneapolisMatt Jan 2013 OP

districts have to be equal in population dsc Jan 2013 #1

Easily done: napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #2

then you should eliminate districts dsc Jan 2013 #5

I heard Maddow putting forth the numbers. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #6

No it wouldn't dsc Jan 2013 #7

Are you going to make me do math while drinking my saturday night beers? napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #9

you are assuming where you live has nothing to do with how you vote dsc Jan 2013 #15

Yeah, today I realized the problem with what I wrote. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #17

one last example using NC dsc Jan 2013 #16

Go here and please learn just how not easy redistricting is. DRoseDARs Jan 2013 #8

Oh I know there's a lot to it. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #18

*facepalm* OK, no, enough. Continually spouting math and quantum physics shows you don't understand. DRoseDARs Jan 2013 #22

With all due respect, this situation is very much about math. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #23

You're missing the forest... for the bees. The only math that matters is ensuring each district has DRoseDARs Jan 2013 #24

population is not uniformly distributed throughout any state JVS Jan 2013 #10

Very enlightening, Sherlock. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #11

"Draw a vertical line down the middle..." JVS Jan 2013 #13

middle: refering to the midpoint of the population density, not the area. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author jeff47 Jan 2013 #20

States aren't uniformly populated. jeff47 Jan 2013 #19

Huh...I think that's a very good question DianaForRussFeingold Jan 2013 #3

Thanks! MinneapolisMatt Jan 2013 #4

We certainly could, that would be the rational and obvious solution (although it wouldn't be the Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #12

We probably shouldn't even have districts. krispos42 Jan 2013 #21