Just here to agree.

Just here to agree.

You also have to take into account continuity and keeping counties/communities of interest together. That’s why Philadelphia has districts that are 90% Democratic (with a huge portion of the Democratic voters in the state). You can’t split those voters into, say, three distinct districts without dragging a tail all…

No. That’s because 500,000+ of the <3,000,000 Democratic votes in 2016 came from two (of the new!, so don’t blame the old gerrymandered map) Congressional districts in/around Philadelphia. It’s because Democrats live together in urban centers that you can’t break into four districts to include Republican areas.

My problem is that partisan bias in drawing congressional maps is bad, even when it helps me? Why are we offended when the other side does it (albeit very egregiously), but we refuse to believe that our side could draw maps with partisan influence?

The 8th District did not need to be changed. It was, according to experts, one of the most reasonable districts in the country (excluding districts like Wyoming and Montana that have an at-large seat). If it was necessary to redraw the lines, it would have been possible to do it and include a similar population to the…

Being concentrated certainly has something to do with it. Look at the new 2nd and 3rd districts. Hugely Democratic districts that contain huge portions of the Democratic vote. Assume those two districts gave about—at least—500,000 Democratic votes. Clinton won less than 3,000,000. That’s more than 1/6th of the…

No, because they should not have been working from the original lines.

A 50-50 split in votes does NOT mean that there is going to be equal representation in terms of elected representative. Particularly when Democratic votes are so incredibly concentrated. That’s why you see more Republicans than Democrats.

Just so we’re clear, I am merely pointing out that the maps should have been drawn exclusively by an independent operator—with no say from the SCoPA.

The argument that the other map was so gerrymandered that this new map should give Democrats a ton of breaks isn’t a good argument. They weren’t, or at least shouldn’t have been, working from the old map. My argument here is that the few districts that were actually GOOD and REASONABLE districts in the old map and…

*Sigh* Democrats are much more concentrated and, therefore, should probably win less districts. Not to mention that they should not have been working from the old maps, so the argument that they were fixing it and needed to give Democrats a break is a bad argument.

I would expect the new map to favor Democrats more than the—what I agree was clearly unconstitutional—former map. But that is different than saying every thing that could have broken either way went to Democrats. They weren’t working from the original map, or at least they shouldn’t have been, because it was so…

Not when Democrats are concentrated in certain areas of the state, you wouldn’t. And Our senior senator is also a Democrat, not that that has anything to do with congressional districts....?

That’s certainly one way to explain it, and I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong. I am just saying that it is at least a LITTLE suspect—particularly when the SCoPA voted along party lines to approve the map.

As a Democratic PA resident, I’m happy to see the new map. However, just about every break in terms of this map went the Democrats way. Any time more Democrats in a district would be good for Demorats, it seems like the lines favored that (for example the small changes from old District 8 to new District 1), and any…

The real story here is the commentators who try to take this seriously...

This will probably mean the end of players talking coaches out of some pitching changes though, right? All six visits have been used in the bottom of the ninth, and a runner on third—the starting pitcher wants to finish the game, but the manager comes out to the mound...he can’t give the manager the “No way, I got…

I recognize that I am days late in responding, but I have been out camping.

I feel like you’re talking about something different than I am. I am talking about teams holding players in the minors to keep them under team control longer. That’s not collusion; that’s teams using the CBA to their advantage.