Skip to main content

View Diary: The race away from the middle in state legislatures: An interesting new study on party polarization (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ... (0+ / 0-)

    No no no. You misunderstand. I never said that there weren't partisan effects of redistricting (there are). Republicans were in control of the legislature during redistricting and ofcourse created a map that was biased toward them. The "removing bias" aspect is that, on balance, a new map will be less biased than the previous map (because the previous map compounds bias over time because of partisan trends and population growth trends given the length of time that it is in force). This means that the current map is likely less biased away from the political mean in the state than the previous map was at the time immediately before redistricting.

    A big however exists here, though, insofar as the results are an average of all maps. It is entirely possible that certain very very very well crafted maps are more biased than that baseline. In this particular case, I would argue that North Carolina is one of those.

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:40:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think were talking past each other (0+ / 0-)

      I agree on your point. I was arguing that independent redistricting creates less polarization than partisan redistricting does. My central point is that I think partisan redistricting has created polarization (something independent redistricting doesn't). Look at the members of the US House from Arizona, created by an independent committee. They tend to be more to the center than others states in the South West.

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

      by dopper0189 on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:47:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh yes yes yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        This is definitely true:  

        I was arguing that independent redistricting creates less polarization than partisan redistricting does.
        But this is not:
        My central point is that I think partisan redistricting has created polarization
        Re-read the comments above for why, but I'll leave you with a very simple and pithy point that shows why this isn't the case:

        If redistricting causes polarization, then why do we observe the same amount of polarization in bodies which are not districted such as the Senate?

        Looking at the House members from Arizona: they tend to be more centrist not because their districts are more centrist, but because their primary constituency (their co-partisan voters) are more centrist themselves and thus choose to nominate a centrist. And this is only the case for the Democrats. The Republicans in Arizona are batshit insane.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:52:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well no no no (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry. I'd tweak your first sentence (the one that I said was true) to say the following:

          I was arguing that independent redistricting creates less bias than partisan redistricting does.
          Sorry, I misread.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:53:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site