4 ms·

This article from 2013 puts it at D+7.1 overall for the House: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who-gerrymanders-more-democrats-or-republicans/ ht

by nhebb 9y ago

This article from 2013 puts it at D+7.1 overall for the House: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who-gerrymanders-more-democrats-or-republicans/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who-gerrymande... What surprises me, though, is how little attention is given to caucuses in the US presidential primaries. The turnout is very low and they're subject to strong arming and party insider corruption in both major parties.

letitgo12345 9y ago
Well speaking just for myself, I honestly would prefer an even more party insiders driven process for the primaries. Too much democracy seems to lead to insane levels of populism leading to characters like Trump. At any rate, US democracy guarantees one a vote in the general -- parties are private orgs and it's not "corrupt" or "wrong" for them to select candidates however they want.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Except since there's no chance for a 3rd party, these two parties hold too much power and it suddenly matters much more. If it was like other countries with tons of parties that rise and fall, you'd be correct. Also what do you mean by insane levels of populism? Isn't that just a derogatory way to say "what the people want"?
  - letitgo12345 9y ago
    There would be more of a chance for a 3rd party if people bothered to care about the house rather than just the presidency... But yeah, today there's little chance. But so what? Plenty of progress, far more than today was made in the past before the primary system. Several great presidents (including Lincoln, FDR, TDR) came from the old process. Meanwhile the new process gave us Trump...Not to mention, tons of members of Congress afraid to do anything sensible because they are too afraid of primary challenges by hyper partisan people on their side. UK doesn't have a primary system (mostly -- they did for Labour who are now saddled with Corbyn) and they don't have a stupidly gridlocked govt. Neither does Canada. Both of those countries have politics dominated by mostly 2-3 parties. In fact almost no country on Earth has it to the level that the US does. Re:"what people want" -- for one thing what people want is often contradictory. For another, there's a reason why the US doesn't have mob rule by majority. What people want is not always coherent or wise. IMO our goal as a society should be a functioning govt and a liberal polity for which democracy is a means. But by no means is democracy a good in an of itself for me at least.
- throwanem 9y ago
  > I honestly would prefer an even more party insiders driven process for the primaries. Too much democracy seems to lead to insane levels of populism leading to characters like Trump. Non sequitur. The DNC's heavily party-insider-driven primary process gave us Clinton as Trump's opponent, rather than Sanders, a similarly populist (and popular!) candidate who most likely would have won.
- ams6110 9y ago
  My perspective is that the politics of the the past 20-30 years lead to candidates like Trump. People were tired of being taken for granted and hearing a lot of promises that weren't kept, from the same bunch of recycled politicians, while their day to day lives kept getting worse.

by nhebb 9y ago

letitgo12345 9y ago

Well speaking just for myself, I honestly would prefer an even more party insiders driven process for the primaries. Too much democracy seems to lead to insane levels of populism leading to characters like Trump. At any rate, US democracy guarantees one a vote in the general -- parties are private orgs and it's not "corrupt" or "wrong" for them to select candidates however they want.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Except since there's no chance for a 3rd party, these two parties hold too much power and it suddenly matters much more. If it was like other countries with tons of parties that rise and fall, you'd be correct. Also what do you mean by insane levels of populism? Isn't that just a derogatory way to say "what the people want"?
- letitgo12345 9y ago
  There would be more of a chance for a 3rd party if people bothered to care about the house rather than just the presidency... But yeah, today there's little chance. But so what? Plenty of progress, far more than today was made in the past before the primary system. Several great presidents (including Lincoln, FDR, TDR) came from the old process. Meanwhile the new process gave us Trump...Not to mention, tons of members of Congress afraid to do anything sensible because they are too afraid of primary challenges by hyper partisan people on their side. UK doesn't have a primary system (mostly -- they did for Labour who are now saddled with Corbyn) and they don't have a stupidly gridlocked govt. Neither does Canada. Both of those countries have politics dominated by mostly 2-3 parties. In fact almost no country on Earth has it to the level that the US does. Re:"what people want" -- for one thing what people want is often contradictory. For another, there's a reason why the US doesn't have mob rule by majority. What people want is not always coherent or wise. IMO our goal as a society should be a functioning govt and a liberal polity for which democracy is a means. But by no means is democracy a good in an of itself for me at least.
throwanem 9y ago
> I honestly would prefer an even more party insiders driven process for the primaries. Too much democracy seems to lead to insane levels of populism leading to characters like Trump. Non sequitur. The DNC's heavily party-insider-driven primary process gave us Clinton as Trump's opponent, rather than Sanders, a similarly populist (and popular!) candidate who most likely would have won.
ams6110 9y ago
My perspective is that the politics of the the past 20-30 years lead to candidates like Trump. People were tired of being taken for granted and hearing a lot of promises that weren't kept, from the same bunch of recycled politicians, while their day to day lives kept getting worse.