Most sane countries leave electoral boundaries to an independent commission
Illegality is slowly being erased in america
I will never understand how the highest number of votes isn’t winning. Bucha cheatin ass bitches
Well, it’s a complicated issue. Let’s assume there’s a state where all but an area of 10 blocks votes for candidate X. If that area happens to be split between several cities, the people living there are SOL as their vote is basically useless. Gerrymandering allows them to have a say in what goes on. But yes, as with everything, corruption ruins it.
Gerrymandering by definition implies malicious intent
Yep. I just didn’t wanna draw a distinction between gerrymandering and regular settings of electoral borders because that’s a mouthful.
What? Without districts and zones, people vote individually. Majority wins. Pretty basic. Keep everything else the same, voting zones, districts, whatever, where people go, but count it as a PERSON no part of a preconfigured cheated group.
Or just do mail in ballots with online tracking that it was received. Done. Majority wins. No electoral college or other bs.
With all the shady shit the US does that other countries don’t seems like majority in US was designed to fail against money.
This way it doesn’t matter that you live or moved to an opposing zone, you still vote and count towards your vote, not a small group.
The issue is less to do with votes inside a district, and more with the apportionment of the districts themselves.
For something like the presidential election a popular vote makes (more) sense.
Where gerrymandering comes in is regional representatives. I’m supposed to have a congressional representative who represents me and my neighbors.
‘Districting’ is the general practice of defining what constitutes a group of neighbors. When done properly you tend to get fairly compact districts that have people living in similar circumstances represented together. The people living near the lake get a representative, as do the people living in the city center, and the people living in the townhouses just at the edge of town do too. (A lot of rules around making sure that doesn’t get racist or awful, but that’s a different comment). ‘gerrymandering’ is the abuse of the districting process to benefit the politicians to the detriment of the voter. Cutting the districts in such a way that people who tend to vote the same way get spread around to either never or always get a majority share, depending on if you want them to win or not.The above poster is wrong, and gerrymandering never had a valid usage. If 10% of the population has a political belief but they’re spread out amongst different districts, then they’re supposed to lose, not have the system bend over backwards to give them a special group.
Districting has value though, since it’s the way the system is supposed to allow people from smaller areas to have their voices heard without being drowned out by bigger areas, but fairly, such that each representative represents roughly the same number of people.Other countries also do this type of districting, they just have other systems in place that keep it from being so flagrantly abused.
Then the people living in those 10 blocks have to live with whatever the rest voted for regardless of whether it works for them or not with no hope of things ever changing because they’re in the minority.
Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to be. Your regional representative is supposed to represent your region. If you’re the minority in the region then you don’t get to pick the representative.
We don’t have a proportional voting system. The system is not designed to ensure that elected party makeup matches voter preference distribution.
The minority voters in your scenario get their say in the Senate votes where everything is equal and the district is the entire state.In any case, the scenario you’re describing is more representative of the cracking type of gerrymandering that’s the problem. A collection of voters in a region being split amongst multiple districts to dilute their votes is what gerrymandering is.
No vote woule be useless because they would all count the same.
Sounds great in theory but that’s just another way of saying minorities don’t get a vote.
It’s almost like the idea that representation based on land instead of based on people is flawed to begin with.
We were never going to do representation by population. We barely got the southern colonies to agree to apportionment with land. (This was the 3/5ths compromise.)
Not sure what you mean, get rid of districts? If you break up the population into groups then you get a geographic area.
Yes. Representation should be proportional. In other systems of democracy, you vote a party and if that party wins 25% of the vote, then they win 25% of the representatives. Gerrymandering works because it’s based on land being more important to representation than people.
I think you could move somewhat towards having both. Let them gerrymander as much as they want, but at the end you also appoint additional districtless seats nominated by the winners, proportional to the number of votes they won by.
y u no direct democracy?
Some of these are absolutely insane
Ah, the minority locator.
That first one is no longer like that, but according to Wikipedia was done by the Democrats.
It’s a complex issue as well, because it’s not always done for nefarious reasons. If say 20% of a city is black, they might bundle them up so that they end up with one black guy and four white guys running the city, rather than the 5 white guys that would come from a “fairer” distribution.
But it’s all just window dressing on the fact that first past the post systems aren’t fit for purpose. If I vote for something, I want that counted at all levels up to the national level, not just thrown away because my particular group of streets doesn’t like it.
🎵how insane can you go?🎶
I request all districts are now Penrose tiled using the Einstein hat!
They are so insane they inspired art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU8H-Ts_rfA
While I do agree, the difficulty is plausible deniability. If you want people with something in common to have a voice, perhaps a suburban ring around an urban core is a fair choice that looks like one of these.
I’m sure it’s not, but that could happen and whatever rule should allow that possibility. This is why it’s not easy to set a clear rule or a clear determination. Now it’s case by case and up to the judicial branch.
Perhaps setting a speed limit would go a long way - you can only redistrict on certain large changes such as the census every ten years and it can’t go into effect without judicial review, without all the appeals being exhausted. In this case Texas doesnt seem to have a legitimate reason to redistrict, and was it Georgia last year trying to argue that they had to use the new map for an election despite it being likely illegal
We need more 1 and 3, and less 2 4 5.
If the enemy has nukes, don’t unilaterally disarm. Same here.
What the fuck does this even mean
It means if democrats don’t gerrymander more, the house permanently in favor of republicans. Wont matter if you win like 60%, you still get a minority if seats.
Idk why people are downvoting, but I guess liberals love “playing by the rules”. Lol “when they go low, you go high” is why traitors have control of the country right now. But anyways, libs being libs 🤷♂️
Good example of why the US is so gerrymandered. People aren’t against gerrymandering, just against the other side doing it
As an outsider that seems to be the gist of what’s going on in the US, no one’s really against the bad things (corruption, guns, intolerance, etc), they just want to win at it.
Biggest egos in the world!
People are downvoting because your solution to oppressing democracy is doubling down on it.
And your take is that “libs love playing by the rules” when someone says that this rule should be abolished? Lol
How do you even get in power to make gerrymandering illegal if this is what happens if you try “playing by the rules”.
This is a state legislature, but imagine, for the national legislature, if every republican state does gerrymandering to the maximum, while every democratic state draws fair borders, what do you think happens if the democrats win 55% of the popular vote nation wide? They will get less than 40% of the seats, just like with the Wisconsin’s state legislature. How the fuck do you abolish gerrymandering if you keep playing by these rules? Because you will never win a majority in government.
You have to use dirty tactics yourself, in order to even win enough seats to then pass the law that will outlaw gerrymandering.
Did you think nazis went away because we were nice to them? No, the allies shot and killed the nazis.
Yes. There should be no gerrymandering. However, you can’t have one party unilaterally disarm while the other one keeps doing it.
“But we are using gerrymandering for good, we will abolish it once we get power, honest!”
lol
playing by the rules only makes sense when the other side does too… a level playing field is more important than some unspoken rules
yes, everyone agrees it should be impossible to gerrymander… but given that it’s not, for an election to be anywhere near “fair” (and to be clear it can’t when you’re gerrymandering) then both sides must do it otherwise it’s the most unfair thing possible
(disclaimer: aussie; this ain’t my country, and our electoral system doesn’t allow this… but for absolute fucks sake yall your vote effects the entire world and we get no say at all, so all we can do is talk some sense into this UNIQUELY crazy bullshit)
We can still hope the playing field will tilt back to level. Four years from now there will be no evil orange overlord to pardon all his minions and groupies. They’ll have to face justice with no way to cheat it.
That hope is what keeps me going. If the Trump kids are fine profiting off their fathers position and to the detriment of the country, I hope to see the day where it all comes crashing down when they’re no longer above the law
We can still hope the playing field will tilt back to level.
they’ve been doing this for years… it ain’t gonna happen. it’s not a symptom of trump: texas used to be a muuuuch more purple state, but these days it’s only ever thought of as a republican stronghold not because of their vote, but because of gerrymandering… that’s how long it’s been going on. most people can’t even remember a time when it was any different
Hmm? All of these look pretty fucked up to me
what?
This one is better because turnout matters and gives representative elections.
Gerrymandering should be a crime and conviction should mean removal from office and a life long ban on working in politics.
Now we just need a way to do that that isn’t vigilante violence.
It is kind of frustrating how every system needs to resist people (usually conservatives) from acting in bad faith.
Now we just need a way to do that
I have some ideas.
that isn’t vigilante violence.
Oh. Nevermind…
We need drastic change but not using the one proven method of bringing it!
Classic
Go on, do something then
[Spiderman meme]
VV is a last step, for when the system has evolved into an unmovable corner.
Like when you play tic tac toe and all moves are done, you have to just restart. Eventually, you have to do something different to get a different outcome. Unfortunately if you fuck up your memory (bad history and bad education), you’re doomed to fail until you get it right or die.
So, yeah, we need to figure out the right way to do it. Until then and if they don’t let us, flip the damn table.
deleted by creator
Supposedly there was a bill a few years ago to ban it that narrowly failed.
At this point maybe the best bet would be for blue states to enter the gerrymandering arms race on a conditional basis; do it as blatantly as it’s being done on the other side, with some explicit clause that it will end when fair representation is implemented nationwide.
I just read an article this morning (tried to find it to link here but couldn’t) that was talking about how it will be more difficult for Dems to lean into this strategy because most of the blue states already have independent committees to draw districts (as they should.) It basically pointed to California as our sole bastion of hope for 2026 and noted that if a bunch of the states follow suit, the Republicans will have the edge. Continues to come down to the electoral college problem with small states getting disproportionate voices.
That assumes the democratic party wants gerrandering to end and they just won’t collude with the Republicans to carve up the country and entrench the two party system.
Some states have anti-gerrimandering written into their constitutions, so that would not be easy.
In order to do that, we need a rigorous definition of gerrymandering that isn’t just “I know it when I see it.” Even if we try to adopt some sort of strict mathematical criteria and algorithm for redistricting (such as optimizing for “compactness” using a Voronoi algorithm), there would always still be some amount of arbitrary human input that could be gamed (such as the location of seeds, in this example). Even if we went so far as to make a rule that everything must be randomized (which would possibly be bad for things like continuity of representation, by the way), we could still end up with people trying to influence the outcome by re-rolling the dice until they got a result they liked.
It’s a hard (in both the computational sense and political sense) problem to solve.
I heard of a test that makes sense, minimally. If you reverse the vote of every single person, the opposite party should win. Apparently there are ways of organizing it where that isn’t the case.
That only works if there are only two parties. I’d prefer a solution that works with electoral reform, not against it.
but since there are 2 parties it complies with your request of
a rigorous definition of gerrymandering that isn’t just “I know it when I see it.”
To make aure I understand, you mean that if you reverse the vote of every district the state should see the opposite party winning?
Yes
I wonder if “I know it when I see it” would be good enough if it had to pass a public vote. Do you think the regular people on the street would vote to support gerrymandering? Getting good voter turnout and education is its own set of problems, admittedly.
Do you think the regular people on the street would vote to support gerrymandering?
If their side gets more representation, then yes. Unfortunately people are too focused on the output and not the process.
Gerrymandering is a crime. We just don’t consider what’s going on to be legally gerrymandering for some bullshit fuck ass reason. There’s only been a few cases of gerrymandering being caught in a legal sense. It is largely ignored.edit: a bit wrong here but whaddya know it’s because our laws are not transparent
This issue is actually pretty weird. Racial gerrymandering is a violation of the voting rights act, hence illegal. Partisan gerrymandering is completely legal.
In practice this seems to mean that it is harder to gerrymander in states where racial voting patterns align with party, e.g. whites vote Republican, blacks vote Democrat. In states where party lines do not predominantly fall on racial lines, you can hack up the districts to favor your party as much as you like.
wow, i did not know that. thank you for elaborating. i looked into it further and found SCOTUS asshole Roberts: "The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.” lol cool, cool…
He’s being quiet about the part where the founders failed to predict an institutionalized two-party system.
Many of the founding fathers were against political parties altogether and absolutely anticipated a two party equilibrium.
So much of their arguments rely on that; “clearly the Constitution says nothing explicitly on this issue (or alternatively, the constitution wasn’t microscopically specific this was a case it had in mind so, really, who are we to allow it to apply to this scenario?); as an originalist, I just presume that there was no intent rather than assuming anyone in the project of writing a founding document has any interest in it working fairly or well.”
Florida has racial Gerrymandering. they just don’t recognize race. problem averted.
If our laws were transparent how would anyone read them
How would you prove it? That’s actually a question that needs an answer
I’m not sure. I said in another comment in here that maybe having the public vote on districts would make it harder to pull off. Like, if the entire state needs to look at the map and say “That looks fair”, maybe it’ll be hard to make those paint splatter ones.
I appreciate the response, reading my comment I hope it didn’t come across as challenging you. Was just meaning to share that it is an important question that I hope someone figure out an answer for.
I think leveraging the relative ease we have with modern communication instead of renting on systems that don’t account for the actual capability that there is no technical reason everyone in the world can’t vote at the same time on issue if we really wanted to make it happen
The technology we currently have is able to do it, it would just be a matter of handling the traffic. (We penalty don’t have enough hardware in place, but that’s just a logistic other)
Why even have the system with districts? Just calculate all the votes and see who wins? If you live in a place where most people vote x, why even bother to vote y. Your vote will go straight in the bin.
The idea was that you get direct representation - your representative should be focused on your issues and the issues plaguing people in your district. But it breaks down today because politicians in the US just vote with their party.
The American political system was designed for weak parties, and geographical representation above all, in a political climate where there were significant cultural differences between regions.
The last time we updated the core rules around districting (435 seats divided as closely to proportionally as possible among the states, with all states being guaranteed at least one seat, in single member districts) was in 1929, when we had a relatively weak federal government, very weak political parties, before the rise of broadcasting (much less national broadcasting, or national television, or cable TV networks, or universal phone service, or internet, or social media). We had 48 states. The population was about 120 million, and a substantial number of citizens didn’t actually speak English at home.
And so it was the vote for the person that was the norm. Plenty of people could and did “switch parties” to vote for the candidate they liked most. Parties couldn’t expel politicians they didn’t like, so most political issues weren’t actually staked out by party line.
But now, we have national parties where even local school governance issues look to the national parties for guidance. And now the parties are strong, where an elected representative is basically powerless to resist even their own party’s agenda. And a bunch of subjects that weren’t partisan have become partisan. All while affiliations with other categories have weakened: fewer ethnic or religious enclaves, less self identity with place of birth, more cultural homogenization between regions, etc.
So it makes sense to switch to a party-based system, with multi member districts and multiple parties. But that isn’t what we have now, and neither side wants to give up the resources and infrastructure they’ve set up to give themselves an advantage in the current system.
Another thing was that in the past it wasn’t actually possible to properly coordinate parties. Communications technology just wasn’t there. I’m sure every congressman had a high-tech “telephone” in their house, but they weren’t always home, and there certainly weren’t answering machines.
More importantly, mass media wasn’t there either. People knew their reps from local town halls and canvassing. They weren’t bombarded with mass media featuring the president or the party leader. Sure, they’d show up in newspapers, but not audio/video. So, that meant that congressional reps had a lot more “fame” in their districts, and the leaders had a lot less. So, that gave the reps more independence.
Money also was less of a factor. It’s always been a problem with US democracy, but national parties didn’t have a stranglehold over their members because of money like they do today.
Mainly because these jerryrigged districts are counting on you not voting in order for them to work.
Ideally, your Reps are supposed to be local, so states are supposed to be divided up into relatively equal populations where the citizens have similar economic and social demographics so they get equitable representation of their local issues at a federal level.
Personally, I think we need a law where voting districts are limited by complexity. Create a law that establishes a maximum perimeter-to-area ratio for congressional districts, and also mandates that the most and least populous districts must be within 10% of eachother’s population.
Mandelbrot has entered the chat
i did a big ol post here about this
generally what you’re talking about is proportional representation… systems like this tend to lead to a government comprised of a lot of minor parties, which sounds great!
but it has its down sides (and i’m not saying 2 party is much better, but it’s useful to be aware of the situations it creates): when there are a lot of minor parties with no clear “above 50%” majority, they have to form a coalition government and that can be extremely fragile
you can’t hold parties to election promises, because you just don’t know what they’re going to have to give up to form a coalition, and even if they do end up forming a coalition you really don’t know how stable that coalition is going to be!
i guess in the US there’s gridlock anyway, so what the hell right? may as well at least have gridlock with parties blocking legislation based on things you believe in… buuuuuuut that’s probably a bad example: first past the post is far more to blame in that case than proportional vs representative democracy
(fptp leads to extremism, ranked choice etc leads to moderation because people’s 2nd, 3rd, etc choice matters: you want to be likeable not just to your “base” but to everyone, because everyone’s vote has a chance of flowing through to you even if you’re not their first choice… if people hate you, you’re not going to get those preference votes when candidates get eliminated)
i guess in the US there’s gridlock anyway, so what the hell right?
Historically there were many compromises where representatives worked with the other party to find a solution they could all agree to. We like to think that’s how politics work.
However over the last few years it’s gotten much more divisive. Currently it seems like everything is a party line vote. It seems like one party especially elevated party loyalty above serving constituents, above doing the right thing. There is no more voice of the people, only the party and the evil orange overlord.
Filibusters have always been a thing, where you can hold the floor as long as you can talk about something, delaying everything. That was both a challenge for someone to do and had a huge impact when Congress had the motivation to do what they saw as right for their constituents. Now it’s automatic. You simply need to declare it. A majority vote is no longer enough for most choices because you always need the supermajority sufficient to overcome the filibuster, to “silence the representative “. Now you can’t get anything done.
For most of our history, Congress understood their highest priority was to pass a budget, and they did. Now that is no longer important. Brinksmanship means there is no longer a downside to hold the whole country hostage over whatever issue so they do. “Shutting down the government” by not passing a budget has become the new norm. Meaning we not only can’t get anything done but disrupt everything else.
For most of our history, Congress understood their highest priority was to pass a budget, and they did. Now that is no longer important.
yeah it’s pretty fucked… in australia, this is a sure way to trigger a dissolved parliament and an early election: there are only 3 things that can happen (and the government shutting down isn’t 1 of them)
- the government resigns and the governor general (technically “the crowns representative in australia”, but in actuality they do very little unless there’s a crisis) appoints (probably) the leader of the opposition
- of budget bills fail 3 times the government may request a double dissolution - early, full federal elections
- the governor general unilaterally dismisses the PM, because if they government can’t even maintain supply then they don’t have the power to do anything at all (this has only ever happened once and was australia’s largest ever constitutional crisis, but i do like that it’s a valid fall-back)
you can’t hold parties to election promises
You can’t do that today either. In fact, it’s worse today. What are you going to do if your party doesn’t fulfill its electoral promises? Vote for the “bad party”?
yup, so it’s different with RCV and representative: in australia we have this, where we still have a mostly 2 party system that’s representative but we have RCV, so you can preference other parties first, and still have your vote eventually flow to the major party of your choice
in this case, perhaps enough votes are lost that they loose a seat (we’ve had at least 1 green rep in parliament for a few elections in a row)
also we track “primary vote” - the number of people who ranked you #1 - as an important election metric with real consequences… there are limits to private donations for elections, and a significant portion of funding for elections comes from the government itself. any party that gets over 4% of the primary vote is eligible to claim a proportional amount of financing for next election… so you can punish them in a way that really matters without actually putting anything real on the line
that’s different to proportional representation, because it’s a property of the system that there are many minor parties which inherently means parties have to make more deals
That sounds good in theory, but I’ve heard a lot of Australians complain about politics there. Maybe that’s just because people complain about politics everywhere. But, it also seems like Australia has a lot of problems that aren’t getting solved (like housing cost).
It definitely doesn’t seem like a place that has things all figured out.
Switzerland is the only country where people seem pretty proud of their system. It has its issues, but that’s mainly because they have some pretty awful voters and a direct democracy system that has caused some real headaches. For example, voters voted for some laws that were incompatible with the treaties the country had signed as part of the EU, and had they gone into effect it would have meant cancellation of their work with France on CERN, for example. I can’t remember how that was eventually resolved, but it was a real mess.
I’ve heard a lot of Australians complain about politics there. Maybe that’s just because people complain about politics everywhere.
i think this is true no matter what: nz and germany are both more proportional systems and similarly people dislike politics
it also seems like Australia has a lot of problems that aren’t getting solved (like housing cost).
absolutely… some problems are incredibly tricky: getting people to vote against their interests (eg with housing, any effort to reduce house prices directly decreases the value of peoples assets - perhaps not investments, but their primary home even)
how to achieve some societal good things is really tricky in any democracy i think
You need districts because not every race is national. Sure it allocates electoral votes but also Congress-critters. When a state has multiple Representatives, who elects each?
Districts are good so that people with something in common are better represented. We do NOT want a “tyranny of the majority” where minorities have no voice.
Some amount of gerrymandering is good to create districts where people have something in common. But that’s the real problem: how to allow “good” complex shapes while prohibiting “bad” gerrymandering? How do you even define that?
Personally I thought there was some law connecting it to the census so that any changes are based on data, not political whims. However clearly not
this is proportional vs representative democracy
it’s a choice between which you value more: your ideals (proportional - lots of minor parties get elected who better represent your morals and what you want accomplished) or someone to represent the area you live in (representative - inevitably leads to, actually, MINORITY rule because the majority across most districts votes for the party that they hate least - partly because first past the post, but also because in individual districts parties need to get above 50% to win, and that’s just a hard ask for minor parties no matter the area you live)
The idea is to have state-wide races where parties, not individuals, compete. Let’s take Washington State, as an example, because it has a nice and even 10 representatives. Instead of having district campaigns, you would have one big statewide election where each party puts up their best campaign, the people vote, and then the votes are counted on a statewide basis and tallied up. Let’s say the results are in and are as follows:
- Democratic Party: 40%
- Republican Party: 28%
- Libertarian Party: 11%
- Green Party: 8%
- Working Families Party: 6%
- Constitution Party: 4%
- Independents: 3%
For each 10% of the vote, that party gets allocated one seat. So Democrats get 4, Republicans get 2, and Libertarians get 1. The remaining 3 seats are doled out to whichever party has the largest remainder. So the Republicans and Greens with 8% get one more each, and the Working Families Party with 6% gets one. The Constitution Party and the independents will go home with zero seats.
The final distribution:
- Democrats: 4
- Republicans: 3
- Libertarians: 1
- Greens: 1
- Working Families: 1
There are two ways of determining which exact people get to actually go and sit in Congress: open list or closed list. A closed list system means that the party publishes a list of candidates prior to the election, and the top N people on that list are elected, where N is the number of seats won by the party. A simple open list system would be that everyone on that party’s list has their name actually appear on the ballot and a vote for them also counts as a vote for their party, then the top N people of that party with the most votes are elected, where N is the number of seats won by a party. In a closed list system, the party determines the order before the election (they can hold a primary). In an open list system, the voters determine the order on election day.
The main drawback of this system is that with a closed list system, the voters can’t really “vote out” an unpopular politician who has the backing of their party since that party will always put them at the top of the list, and open list systems tend to have extremely long ballot papers (if each party here stood the minimum of 10 candidates and 10 independents also stood, that would be 70 candidates on the ballot). It also forces the election to be statewide which means smaller parties can’t gain regional footholds by concentrating all their efforts on a small number of constituencies. Small parties in the US don’t tend to do this anyway, but it is a fairly successful strategy in other countries, like the Bloc Québécois in Canada or the Scottish National Party in the UK. That being said, a proportional system would still increase the chance that smaller parties have of obtaining representation. Small parties in the US have almost invisible campaigns but if they took it seriously, they’d only need to get 10% of the vote to guarantee a seat, and even with 6-7% they’d still have a good shot at getting one, which on some years they almost do anyway even without a campaign.
The other drawback is that it eliminates the concept of a “local” representative (oddly-shaped and extremely large constituencies notwithstanding), so if a representative votes for a policy that is extremely unpopular in their constituency, it is less effective to “punish” them for it within that constituency as long as the candidate or their party is still popular statewide.
The United States is not a nation anymore. It’s a corporation. It’s also 100% corrupt. When will people come to terms with this? As long as most people are in denial of this, it will always be so.
Fun fact, the term for running a nation like a corporation is fascism.
Well it’s already been this way for like 20 years almost. It’s been forming for many decades, but it’s a done deal.
You guys are entering the late decadence phase as already experienced in the Roman Empire
Not exactly, but similar. The dynamics of the haves and have-nots are different because of the sheer numbers. But we are at a point where if just a certain amount more of the wealth is shifted to the oligarchs, then the entire system will collapse.
I’ve already gotten a three day ban on Reddit for making certain statements, so I’ll just state my opinion that the only way to stop this is to mortify a few billionaires. But aside from that, the problem is apathy, complacency, and lack of unity. This is why they came up with all the petty divisive “issues” which are really not issues. This is why the Orange Feces-Man did that whole mask thing. Because if people were united and everyone felt they were on the same side, there would be rebellion - nay, revolution. It’s happened in the past many, many, many times around the world through history. But I don’t think they ever had the sheer magnitude of distractions that we have today. Bread and Circuses vs Streaming, social media, entertainment more than all the humans of the earth could collectively consume. THAT, the Romans did not have at their disposal to weaponize.
Where do we draw the line?
I’ll caveat this by saying that I detest gerrymandering and think it’s one of the roots of the decline of the US political systems.
That being said, I’m going to answer a question you might not have even asked with a bunch of information that doesn’t answer things better than “it’s complicated.”
The easiest “fair” way to divide up districts is based on equal polygons (say squares that are XX miles/km on an edge, for simplicity’s sake). The issue is that this doesn’t take into account population gradients due to terrain and zoning, or cultural/ethnic clusters. So, on its face it looks reasonable but you’ll end up with districts that cover a city with 1 million people of diverse cultural makeup standing equal with a district of 1000 people that are culturally/ethnically homogenous. Not actually fair.
So, you can try to draw irregular shapes and the next “fair” way to try and do that is to equalize population. Now you quickly devolve into a ton of questions about HOW to draw the districts to be inclusive and representative of the people in the overall area you’re trying to subdivide.
Imagine a fictional city with a cultural cluster (Chinatown in many American cities for example), a river, a wealthy area, a low income area, and industrial/commercial areas with large land mass and low resident populations.
How do you fairly draw those lines? You don’t want to disenfranchise an ethnic minority by subdividing them into several districts, you might have wealthier living on the river, you might have residents with business oriented interests in the industrial areas AND low income… It quickly becomes a mess.
A “fair” districting can look gerrymandered if you’re trying to enfranchise separate voting blocs in proportion to their actual population.
The problem is that politicians play this song and dance where they claim they’re trying to be fair (until recently in Texas where GOP said the quiet part out loud and just said they want to redraw lines to get more seats) but in reality they are setting up districts that subdivide minority blocs into several districts that disenfranchise their voting interests.
It’s disgusting, it’s a clown show. But none of OPs photos are representative of what a good district looks like, because every location is different and there’s likely an incredibly small number of locations that would divide that cleanly, if any.
So, it’s complicated. Needs to be independently managed outside politics as best as possible and staffed by smart people and backed up by good data.
I say #2, specifically because it can be done mathematically, as opposed to trying to agree on some definition of “fairness” that isn’t completely different for every office and doesn’t have to be wholly redistricted every election as a consequence.
Say, something like least split line. Basically, if you have an even number of seats for a region, draw the shortest length line that splits the region into two regions of equal population. If you have an odd number of seats > 1, then draw the shortest line that splits the region based on number per seat given one side gets the “extra” seat (for example, for 5 seats you’d split so that one side is 2/3 of the other side and give 3 seats to one side and 2 to the other). Repeat the process for each region created by these lines until each region represents one seat. If there are multiple shortest lines, you the one closest to a NS axis. The extra seat always goes to the west side of the line.
At least half his base has WOKE up. The other half still under the cult trance… keep it alive and he’ll be gone next election gerymand.be dammed
I’m curious what makes you think any of his base have woken up? Absolutely nothing seems to be stopping his administration at this point, and the polls from republicans still seem to show very high support for his actions.
Haven’t you seen the weekly headlines about his “plummeting” poll numbers?? Just ignore the fact that it always “plummets” to the same 42%.
There’s certainly no revolution happening in Trumpistan, but approval polls are at a record low: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-approval-rating-dips-in-new-poll-what-recent-surveys-show/ar-AA1K2O1k
We shouldn’t delude ourselves that they will wake up from their delusion one day, but also recognize the trend so far.
What’s even more unfair is area based voting, where your individual vote doesn’t count to affect the government, you instead vote for a local representative which in turn effects the government. Your vote for president or prime minister should be direct, not a postcode lottery even without gerrymandering.
I don’t think tiered representation is bad if 1: every person’s vote is equal regardless of zip code 2: you have instant recall and can just have a representative replaced if they vote against their constituency wishes.
Instant recall would be huge in the US. People here have extremely short memories.
What are you saying, I don’t understand…?
Anyway, what does this have to do with Sydney Sweeney’s Nazi jeans, how are you not enraged by that?1?1!!!
You have to focus on the issues that matter, ok dummy?
/s/s/s
EDIT:
God fucking damnit, it happened again.
I made this comment as a joke, a day ago, and within 24hrs…
Republican representatives, offices directly under Trump, and of course Fox News…
Yep, they’re all leaning into this, fanning the flames of this particular, latest culture war talking point, as an obvious distraction / rage bait tactic, basically trolling people with twitter posts and throwing red meat out to their core via Jesse Waters on cable TV.
flooding the news, firehood falsehood. you have the MSM thanks for that, to distract people, complements from RU.
That’s just direct elections with extra steps.
No, because the lowest-level voter typically has less direct knowledge of higher level politician or policy than the guy who has to work with them.
You’re just saying the extra steps are justified, not that they don’t exist. Which is hogwash, of course. Indirect elections where the intermediate can choose the candidate regardless of people’s choice is just regulated election fraud.
What your describing is called a Republic. There are several benefits to such a model.
The most relevant was well summarized in MIB as “a person is smart, people are stupid”. A simple direct democracy is great until you are relying on an uninformed population to make a time-critical decision that requires expertise. If we instead elect people who are then expected to use tax dollars to consult experts, and then represent our interests by voting accordingly, we can theoretically avoid problems (such as the tragedy of the commons).
The downside happens when the representative takes advantage of the public’s ignorance, fosters it, and wields it for personal/oligarchic gain. Ideally the people are just smart enough to see that happening and vote them out before it becomes a systemic issue…
Just FYI, this use of republic is not recognised in political science and as far as I’ve seen is only used by americans justifying why their system is undemocratic. Republic just comes from “res Publica” (public affair) and means the head of state is not a monarch but a member of the public. There are very democratic republics like Finland and there are very undemocratic republics like the PRC. The way you describe a republic would apply to countries like the UK or Sweden, which are constitutional monarchies, not republics.
Representative democracy is a better term for what you are talking about, where the population elects representatives who are able to advocate for them and take the time to become subject matter experts on running the country (idealy).
Or even better, the position of president or prime minister should have little power.
You don’t want that. France tried that, a couple of times, it didn’t work. Government ended up deadlocked and falling every 6 months. Our 5th republic granted more power to the presidency, and now it’s a little better.
What you do want, however, is the head of state and the head of government to be two distinct persons. Which is not the case in the USA.
When having these roles be distinct, aren’t the only pieces intrinsic to the head of state merely ceremonial?
No! France has a head of state (the president) and a head of government (prime minister).
They are both powerful, none of these role is performative.
But where are the divisions and do other instances of government with separation of these roles divide the power in the same places?
Which powers have to go to the head of state for it to really be considered the head of state in more than just name?
Oof, that’s a tough question to answer in here. There is no really good way to generalise who has what power, and there is probably many ways to split the powers in a meaningful way.
You can read the articles on both positions specifically for France, which I do think in this case is a great example, on wikipedia, although if you want a more precise and complete understanding you’d probably have to read the french article and translate it.
The main advantage of this system is that when the president doesn’t have the majority to support him in the parliament, most of the executive power de facto shifts to the prime minister, who is usually nominated (by the president) in accordance with the parliament’s majority coalition. When that’s not done, the parliament can move to “censor” the government and force the president to nominate a new prime minister, who then nominates the rest of the government.
That system is a good way to make sure the president doesn’t do whatever the fuck they want if the parliament disagrees.
In theory the US Federal govt should be split into branches so that it has power, but the checks and balances between branches prevent any single branch from dominating. Which sucks when all 3 branches collude to hand all the power to the executive branch, which then wields the Federal govt to dominate the states.
For the record, a similar system where the states remain separate with a centralized governing body, but with less power than a Federalist one is called a Confederacy…so yeah, we tried that in the US once too. On the flip side, Switzerland’s Confederation seems to be working out pretty great for them.
When the Senate’s full of cucks, they let you do it
I mean, you could go the other way. Presidencies are bad on their face and the chief executive should be promoted from the party with a legislative majority (ie, Parliamentary system).
Then go after single representative districts and the obscenely high constituent to representative ratios.
Area based voting is a necessity for electing a local representative. But it shouldn’t apply for national elections, on that I agree. The US is the only country I know of that applies area based voting in national elections.
And the UK, as the parliament is made up of local representatives. They should be two different people.
Your vote for president or prime minister
The whole reason a prime minister is different from a president is that they’re not elected by direct votes. They’re the leader of the party with the most representatives (more or less).
That is the Westminster system. It’s fine in that the head of the executive only has power so long as they have the confidence of the elected members. If the elected members lose confidence then the government falls. The government is the house, so your vote does directly influence the government on either the government or opposition side. Don’t get too jealous of the American system - it’s a bloody mess in its own right.
The Government isn’t the house, it’s the around 140 ministers appointed by the PM, drawn from both houses, plus the whips. Opposite them is the opposition frontbench, which is the leader of the opposition and the shadow cabinet, and their whips. Everyone else in the Commons from those two parties are backbenchers.
“Government” has two meanings here. The oppostion has an official role in “governance” which is why they have offices, sit in committees, have research budgets, vote etc. In a minority government situation The backbenchers have a great deal of control over the process. Opposition included. The “GOVernment” controls the process to great extent.
This isn’t like the American system where the minority partner is relegated to the sides. The opposition play a very strong role in the parliamentary process. It doesn’t map well onto American politics at all.
the gop loves to use the 4th one, which always fucks up dem voters, and thats where you see voter turnout problems. plus they also suppress votes in the areas they control which has significant D voters too.
Number 2 is the actual ideal, not number 1. Number 1 represents, “good,” gerrymandering that politicians argue for, but it really only serves them. They get to keep highly partisan electorate that will reelect them no matter what, which means they can be less responsive to the will of their voters. They only have to worry about primary challengers, which aren’t very common, and can mostly ignore their electorate without issue.
It’s also important to note that this diagram is an oversimplification that can’t express the nuances of an actual electorate. While a red and blue binary might be helpful for this example, a plurality of voters identify as independents, and while most of them have preferences towards the right or left, they are movable. The point is that actual voters are more nuanced and less static than this representation.
Number 2 is how distracting would work in an ideal world; it doesn’t take into account political alignment at all, but instead just groups people together by proximity. A red victory is unlikely, but still possible if the blue candidate doesn’t deliver for his constituents and winds up with low voter turnout. It also steers politicians away from partisan extremism, as they may need to appeal to a non-partisan plurality. That being said, when literal fascists are attempting number 3, we’ll have to respond in kind if we want any chance of maintaining our democracy, but in the long term, the solution is no gerrymandering, not, “perfect representation,” gerrymandering.
In my opinion there shouldn’t be districts at all. Too much potential for fuckery.
Proportional representation is the way. X% of the vote means X% of seats, no shenanigans
No shenanigans except the party picks the rep instead of the voters. Maybe you have a party you trust to do that, but I don’t.
You will have more parties. Internal party democracy is not that important then
The secret is that you need proportional elections within each district. What also implies that they should be bigger…
Or, in other words, just copy Switzerland and you’ll be fine.
(Personally, I’m divided. The largest scale your election is, the most voice you give to fringe distributed groups. I can’t decide if this is good or bad.)
In my country Germany the system is that every party above 5% can send representatives according to their percentage of votes. Then there are districts, who have to have size of approximately 250.000 inhabitants with German citizenship, who send a representative of the party with the most votes.
There a laws in place to not seperate counties, towns and cities when district lines have to be redrawn.
It’s a bit simplified of course.
The point of representatives is that they each represent a small portion of the population. If you remove districts, then who are house members representing?
Indeed that’s the intention, but in practice gerrymandering often leads to the opposite outcome where urban cores are divided up with large rural areas to suppress one side’s votes.
See Utah’s districts for the most obvious example of this. It would be logical to group Salt Lake City in one district, Provo + some suburbs in another, then the rural areas in the remaining districts. But instead the city is divided evenly such that each part of the city is in a different district, with every district dominated by large rural areas.
You can have an electoral division of your country without gerrymandering. Cf most european countries.
Most European countries do not use first past the post, but proportional representation with multiple elected representatives per voting district. There is far less incentive for politicians to gerrymander with proportional representation.
Multi-representative per-voting district isn’t the same as proportional representation - you still get a percentage of votes that gets thrown out, normally smaller parties which can’t get enough votes in any one district to add up to a representative but if you added up their votes nationally it would be enough to have several representatives.
You still get things like parties getting 10% of the vote but only 5% of parliamentarians, whilst the big parties can get 50% of parliamentarians on about 40% of the vote.
In Proportional Representation there are no districts and the votes of the whole country are added up and then used to allocate parliamentarians, which minimizes the votes lost because they didn’t add up to a parliamentarian.
Multi-representative per-voting districts are still better than First Past The Post (as a singled representative per district mathematically maximizes the number of votes thrown out), but it’s still designed to reduced the representation of smaller parties and boost that of larger ones.
As far as I know the only true Proportional Vote System in Europe is in the Netherlands, though Germany have a mixed system with a 5% threshold to get into the Bundestag.
One of the main complications in the US is the racial mix. Looking at party lines and geographic boundaries is an over simplification
Say 20% of the population is black, and the state has five reps. Two neighboring cities each have 30% black population, and enough population to have two of the five reps. The rest are dispersed in rural areas. Do you draw that each city gets one rep? Or do you draw such that a district has a majority of black residents, with funny boundaries to accommodate the geography?
The former means that you will more likely end up with a white representative for both cities and the voice of the black community are not heard in the legislative body. The latter means that you have now gerrymandered to ensure a group gets a voice they deserve.
This is the real pain in the ass about the whole thing. Some level of drawing stupid districts is needed to create good. Pure geographically created boundaries will only cause segregation if we want minority groups to have an equal voice in the legislature.
But, people in power tend to fuck everything up.
When everyone votes along party lines, why does it matter if you have local representation ? Barely any of them actually vote how they think their constituents would want them to vote, they vote however the party tells them to vote.
This is a very cynical point of view that would make it even less possible for independants to be represented in the House, remove town halls from the system, and therefore make the entire system even less democratic and remove the entire point of a representative democracy.
There is zero benefit to this.
I’m not saying getting rid of local representation is the solution, necessarily. In fact, I personally think the opposite is true and we need more local representation.
It’s just with the current system, local representation is kind of useless and supports gerrymandering and corruption.
If I were in charge I would demand political parties to disperse completely and local representatives be the only people on the ballot to go ahead and make decisions for the people who voted for them. Vote for the person not the party.
Proportional voting would actually make smaller parties be able to have representatives, breaking up the 2 party system and promoting more diverse point of views. You can also have mixed systems, with locally elected reps for a part of the house, and the rest of the house being filled in a manner that the end result is proportional to the global voting share
Also it’s possible to have a “national circle” which when votes allocate parliamentary representatives, is used for, after all regional representatives have be allocated, pick up all votes that didn’t yielded any representatives in the regional circles and use them to allocate representatives nationally.
Smaller parties which are not regionally concentrated loose regional representation but they don’t lose representation in overall as those votes end up electing national representatives, whilst very regional parties get regional representatives and the bigger national parties get mainly regional representative and maybe a handful of national ones.
Proportional representatives. Of a party gets a 30%of the votes, it gets a 30%ish of the seats.
The arguably huge downside of this, is that it cuts the direct line from you to a representative. That undermines democracy, because it undermines your capacity to be heard.
Does your representative ever done something you asked for?
I’m not anerican so I’m unsure how pertinent my experience is.
But yes, my representatives often hold public neetings in which anyone is invited, although I don’t go there myself.
If the “direct line” is theoretical anyway it just doesn’t matter anyway.
I don’t have any citations sorry, but I did look into this about 15 years ago for reasons I no longer remember, and what I learned is that in most places with large overall populations that uses a system like this, and where leadership is not voted for independently of local representation, the representatives overwhelmingly vote along party leadership not on the community they represent.
Not sure I’m explaining it well sorry
Both sides have had opportunities to make it illegal and neither have done it. I wonder why.
Because you never were a democracy
I’m not USA or from USA.
lol idiot
Because if you have the power to make it illegal, by definition, the old system worked for you (you won), so why would you change it?
It’s cynical as all hell, but that’s how it works.
I mean yeah but it feels stupider to me. Like bumping your head on something repeatedly then seeing somebody else bump their head, laugh at them and then bump your own head again. Political slapstick.
Simply vote for the one who’s not supporting it the least to push them towards actually supporting it at all.
Integrity is most common in other countries, but not in the united states.
Pay more attention to home friend, Europe is sliding into corruption hand in hand with us. But that would get in the way of nationalism wouldn’t it?
Fragile Europeans: Americans are children who need a babysitter
Also fragile Europeans: a couple brown people arrive welp, back to the 1930s
At least in the UK, Germany and France, certainly. Although, tbf, Americans are their own kind of unreasonable, fearful and violent. Western Europe is America-lite.
Congrats, you have written the dumbest take I’ve read today
The US is failing more rapidly than other countries. But, it should be seen as an opportunity to look at your own country and think “ok, how would a morally bankrupt party exploit this thing that just used to be a tradition or a norm, and exploit it because there’s no actual rule?”
We really aren’t we just have a spotlight on us and third parties deliberately making it look bigger and worse
Good take!!
