Talk:Florida's 16th congressional district
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How Gerrymandered is that seat? It looks to be in two parts which don't touch. I didn't even know that was legal! So, is there evidence this seat is Gerrymandered? --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's pretty severely gerrymandered, in order to put as many Republican votes as possible into the 16th and as many black/Democratic votes as possible into the 23rd. The two parts of the 16th do connect up, though, along the Intercoastal Waterway around Ft. Pierce. --Orange Mike 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Every district is gerrymandered, as far as I can tell. If there's a reliable source that says this district is more gerrymandered than average, then it could be mentioned to the article. --Interiot 17:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the boundaries of the 16th and 23rd districts themselves constitute prima facie evidence of gerrymandering. A lawsuit in federal court said the same thing, but was eventually defeated [1] --Orange Mike 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is, and so are a lot others. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I don't really care one way or the other, just that interpretations of the raw data (especially if it's a comparison with lots of other districts, like "this district is one of the most gerrymandered") may border on original research, and a reliable source would stave off any questions about that. But no biggie. --Interiot 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the court ruling said inter alia, "At a general level, we share some of the concerns articulated by the Martinez plaintiffs in their "process" claims. ... although the Republican leadership of the legislature did not prevent anyone from presenting their views on redistricting, held numerous hearings throughout the state on redistricting which large numbers of people attended, and created a software program--FREDS--that was economical and available to the public, it appears that the leadership also wanted to limit the actual substantive debate on the merits of the various plans that were proposed, and did not much care about input from the Democratic minority or the public on the redistricting process or the plans themselves. This raw exercise of majority legislative power does not seem to be the best way of conducting a critical task like redistricting, but it does seem to be an unfortunate fact of political life around the country." "Raw exercise of legislative power": sounds like a dictionary definition of gerrymandering.--Orange Mike 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- That should definitely be mentioned in the article. --Interiot 19:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers. I'm use to being in a country where politicians don't get to decide the boundaries (and it doesn't really matter anyway given an over-riding proportional tier), so that looks really terrible to me. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- That should definitely be mentioned in the article. --Interiot 19:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the court ruling said inter alia, "At a general level, we share some of the concerns articulated by the Martinez plaintiffs in their "process" claims. ... although the Republican leadership of the legislature did not prevent anyone from presenting their views on redistricting, held numerous hearings throughout the state on redistricting which large numbers of people attended, and created a software program--FREDS--that was economical and available to the public, it appears that the leadership also wanted to limit the actual substantive debate on the merits of the various plans that were proposed, and did not much care about input from the Democratic minority or the public on the redistricting process or the plans themselves. This raw exercise of majority legislative power does not seem to be the best way of conducting a critical task like redistricting, but it does seem to be an unfortunate fact of political life around the country." "Raw exercise of legislative power": sounds like a dictionary definition of gerrymandering.--Orange Mike 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is, and so are a lot others. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I don't really care one way or the other, just that interpretations of the raw data (especially if it's a comparison with lots of other districts, like "this district is one of the most gerrymandered") may border on original research, and a reliable source would stave off any questions about that. But no biggie. --Interiot 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the boundaries of the 16th and 23rd districts themselves constitute prima facie evidence of gerrymandering. A lawsuit in federal court said the same thing, but was eventually defeated [1] --Orange Mike 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Every district is gerrymandered, as far as I can tell. If there's a reliable source that says this district is more gerrymandered than average, then it could be mentioned to the article. --Interiot 17:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
![[2]](http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/IL08_109.gif){kind=link}
![[3]](http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/IL19_109.gif){kind=link}
![[4]](http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/IL17_109.gif){kind=link}
![[5]](http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/IL11_109.gif){kind=link}
![[6]](http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/IL07_109.gif){kind=link}
Vacancy
editWho takes over the duties of the representative for this district in the absense of a congressman? Voting and such, like say between 12/21/06 and 01/03/06? Or do the duties just go undone until the next congress starts? VolatileChemical 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. --Orange Mike 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that can't be good. VolatileChemical 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Florida's 16th congressional district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423082228/http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Florida's 16th congressional district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105010412/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/fl/district-16/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/fl/district-16/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003032039/http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=FL16&cycle=2006 to http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=FL16&Cycle=2006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)