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…
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’ve said it many times, the US is a model example of what not to do in so so many different ways.
k
Some of these are absolutely insane
It’s almost like the idea that representation based on land instead of based on people is flawed to begin with.
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
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.
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.
just one of the many reasons you see such consistent low turnouts in american elections
In the USA, politicians chose the voters!
No no, it’s Russia you see.
Gerrymandering and throwing your opponents out the window are two different things, even if it leads to similar outcomes at first glance.
LOL you’ve really got brainbugs. Munch munch munch
As soon as we get a Democrat president let’s just get rid of it forever.
Unfortunately whichever party is in power is incentivized to be in favor of biasing the process toward themselves, both parties choose to keep gerrymandering even though it’s obviously voter suppression.
This is also why neither of them will support ranked choice/instant run-off voting.
They’ve had plenty of opportunities and haven’t done it.
So, “perfect representation” is when one side wins that does not represent 40% of the votes?
When there’s just two “teams”, yeah. What’s more fair than majority rule in that situation?
Maybe proportional representation instead of winner takes it all?
For district seats, that is proportional representation. It doesnt say it is winner take all. When it says that blue or red wins, it is just saying that they won the majority, and have dominate power over whatever government body they represent.
When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiple district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.
When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes
So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
Sounds more like that outcome is the “least bad” rather than “perfect”.First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, “least bad” and “perfect” are synonymous.
Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It’s a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you’d see more candidates, because people then wouldn’t just “vote useful”.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.
