5 ms·

That's wrong, and wrong in really interesting ways.First off if we want to argue from the founders districts were never supposed to be more than 10k people and

That's wrong, and wrong in really interesting ways.First off if we want to argue from the founders districts were never supposed to be more than 10k people and the number of districts would naturally grow with population. We threw that out the window in the early 20th century precisely to make the representation of power less democratic. Ignoring all of that history, and taking your statement in good faith, it still is reductive to pretend that we're in the same state as the 18th century. Voters are much more diverse, and the technology exists to precisely draw districts to achieve very precise outcomes. The increased precision and ability to do things at scale is a differentiating factor, as well as the increased consequences; a voting population that's just "land owning white males" might see gerrymandering as less extreme that the much more diverse distribution of beliefs we have in the current voting population. The current problems with gerrymandering are huge. Issues that have super majority support among the population (reproductive rights, immigration reform, drug reform, gun control) are controlled by an increasingly small population of voters. You can (and even may be correct) claim that this represents the wills of the founders; it's a much harder sell to claim that this is a "good thing" that the people shouldn't be able to push back against.

tptacek 7y ago
So by "wrong in interesting ways" you mean "right, but in ways not relevant to my particular argument".
- lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
  No, in the you're wrong unequivocally, but the ideas that we can "know the will of the founders" and "the will of the founders somehow matters" is really interesting in 2019.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I generally don't think we can, but since "gerrymandering" was coined to describe an instance of it occurring in Boston during the presidency of James Madison, I think we have a clear signal in this one case.
ctlby 7y ago
Reproductive rights, as understood by liberals, do not have super-majority support [1]. Immigration reform, as understood by liberals, does not have super-majority support [2]. Gun control, as understood by liberals, does not have super-majority support [3]. Marijuana legalization barely has super-majority support [4]. No other drug reform, as understood by liberals, has super-majority support. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx [4] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx
- avs733 7y ago
  So you are arguing that rights and individual freedoms shouldn't be subject to majority approval? I'm confused as to your point...
  - ctlby 7y ago
    In the few parts of the parent comment that were coherent, the poster made erroneous factual claims. I was simply trying to clear those up.
    - avs733 7y ago
      >In the few parts of the parent comment that were coherent Not necessary.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Your first two examples are questionable, because you don't define what "as understood by liberals" means. * 50% believe abortion should be legal in any circumstances, plus 29% believe it should be legal in some. That's 79%, which is a supermajority. * 30% believe immigration should be increased, plus 37% believe it should stay the same (though "same as what" is not clear). That's 67%, which is a supermajority. Your third and fourth examples simply don't support your claim at all. 61% believe gun sales should be more limited, which by some definitions is already a supermajority. 66% believe marijuana should be legal, likewise. You're just not representing the facts accurately. Even if you play around a bit with which answers represent a liberal view and what definition of supermajority should apply, you could just drop "super" and three out of four would be clear slam-dunks for your interlocutor. In context, the original claim about gerrymandering thwarting the will of the majority is clearly true according to your own data.

tptacek 7y ago

So by "wrong in interesting ways" you mean "right, but in ways not relevant to my particular argument".

lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
No, in the you're wrong unequivocally, but the ideas that we can "know the will of the founders" and "the will of the founders somehow matters" is really interesting in 2019.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I generally don't think we can, but since "gerrymandering" was coined to describe an instance of it occurring in Boston during the presidency of James Madison, I think we have a clear signal in this one case.

ctlby 7y ago

Reproductive rights, as understood by liberals, do not have super-majority support [1]. Immigration reform, as understood by liberals, does not have super-majority support [2]. Gun control, as understood by liberals, does not have super-majority support [3]. Marijuana legalization barely has super-majority support [4]. No other drug reform, as understood by liberals, has super-majority support. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx [4] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx

avs733 7y ago
So you are arguing that rights and individual freedoms shouldn't be subject to majority approval? I'm confused as to your point...
- ctlby 7y ago
  In the few parts of the parent comment that were coherent, the poster made erroneous factual claims. I was simply trying to clear those up.
  - avs733 7y ago
    >In the few parts of the parent comment that were coherent Not necessary.
notacoward 7y ago
Your first two examples are questionable, because you don't define what "as understood by liberals" means. * 50% believe abortion should be legal in any circumstances, plus 29% believe it should be legal in some. That's 79%, which is a supermajority. * 30% believe immigration should be increased, plus 37% believe it should stay the same (though "same as what" is not clear). That's 67%, which is a supermajority. Your third and fourth examples simply don't support your claim at all. 61% believe gun sales should be more limited, which by some definitions is already a supermajority. 66% believe marijuana should be legal, likewise. You're just not representing the facts accurately. Even if you play around a bit with which answers represent a liberal view and what definition of supermajority should apply, you could just drop "super" and three out of four would be clear slam-dunks for your interlocutor. In context, the original claim about gerrymandering thwarting the will of the majority is clearly true according to your own data.