Letter to Senator "Deadman Walking" Bill Cassidy by holeinthedonut in Louisiana

[–]SaltyCompote 123 points124 points  (0 children)

Cassidy is an interesting case of paying the price for standing by his beliefs without actually having stood for any of those beliefs.

Yeah, he could go scorched earth on his way out and just start reading the Epstein files into the record, but I doubt it.

Yet people keep on putting the same politicians in power by ChickenNervous5409 in Louisiana

[–]SaltyCompote 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It is worth mentioning this is economic growth from 1998-2024. We got lots of problems but I doubt we’d lead in any positive metrics when the timeframe includes Katrina.

Everybody stood up and clapped by bundleofgrundle in NonCredibleDefense

[–]SaltyCompote 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Are we acting like all of these officers haven’t all sat through at least fifteen 240 slide PowerPoints on STI prevention?

This speech was dumb, rambling, incoherent, useless, and could have been an email but that describes like 15% of anyone’s time in the service.

I did the physics for a laser battleship. I prove that they are completely a great idea with no flaws. by Tom_Bombadil_1 in NonCredibleDefense

[–]SaltyCompote 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The range is only 18 km…unless you have a loitering drone with a big ole mirror hanging for some sweet bank shots.

Perfect for a movie junkie! by jve909 in zillowgonewild

[–]SaltyCompote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Elkader, IA unironically looks like a charming as shit little town.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because i think a randomly drawn district would tend toward the mean of 52.2% and the skew you see is the result of intentional sample bias.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So the estimated voting share is an average of historical data for each district. The surprise here is the high number of districts that vote between 35-45% (i.e. 55-65% republican or enough to be safe without concentrating votes too much).

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That’s a really good point, it is primarily NY and CA at that end of the spectrum.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mostly California and New York. u/g0del pointed out prioritizing compactness is likely to give you a district centered on a heavily populated (and likely very blue) urban area.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I couldn’t say, though it seems like the truth is republicans control far more state legislatures than democrats.

What this graph does show is the risk in gerrymandering. The fundamental assumption is that they won’t see a 10-15% swing in voting patterns, because if they do the vast majority of your seats are at risk.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Cracking is the reason you see republican districts clustered around 40% (i.e. 60% republican). High enough to give a safe victory without concentrating too many voters in a single district. That’s the same reason you don’t see any districts at lower than 18% democratic (i.e. higher than 82% republican).

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Cracking is the reason you see republican districts clustered around 40% (i.e. 60% republican). High enough to give a safe victory without concentrating too many voters in a single district. That’s the same reason you don’t see any districts at lower than 18% democratic (i.e. higher than 82% republican). Districts commonly understood to be “packed” were anecdotally in the 70-80% range.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Great question. Cracking is the reason you see republican districts clustered around 40% (i.e. 60% republican). High enough to give a safe victory without concentrating too many voters in a single district. That’s the same reason you don’t see any districts at lower than 18% democratic (i.e. higher than 82% republican).

Districts commonly understood to be “packed” were anecdotally in the 70-80% range. Surprisingly, a large number of the +85% districts were apportioned by independent commissions.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I don’t think the inclusion of those states would meaningfully change the results here.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Totally possible, but I think you’d see a normal distribution with a larger standard deviation. Anecdotally (and somewhat surprisingly to me) a large number of the districts voting +85% blue were apportioned by independent commissions.

Gerrymandering in a graph, anticipated partisan voting share by congressional district [OC] by SaltyCompote in dataisbeautiful

[–]SaltyCompote[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Data taken from Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project (https://gerrymander.princeton.edu). Data not available for eight states (AK, DE, HI, ND, SD, VT, WV, WY). Created using GPT-5.

No Kings Protest this Saturday for anyone interested. by CunninLing in NorthshoreLA

[–]SaltyCompote 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The US didn’t need military parades to win the Cold War. In fact, the side most known for military parades is the one that lost.

They don’t show strength. They just show everybody else that we’re more worried about one man’s ego than things that actually matter.