8 ms·

This is one of the big reasons I think Warren's first priority plan of voting reforms might be more important than any other. Gerrymandering, poll closures, vot

by rtkwe 7y ago

This is one of the big reasons I think Warren's first priority plan of voting reforms might be more important than any other. Gerrymandering, poll closures, voter ID laws all of it is one big effort to hold on to power despite losing the support of the voters which is the whole basis of the legitimacy of government power in the US.

js2 7y ago
FWIW, Buttigieg has been saying the same thing since the beginning of his campaign. https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105 https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105
- dublinben 7y ago
  So did Lawrence Lessig in his ill-fated campaign in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_president...
bilbo0s 7y ago
I don't know about the rest of it, but gerrymandering definitely needs to go. Getting rid of gerrymandering is nothing but a "win" for every American voter regardless of political affiliation.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  I don't know how it will ever go away with the Supreme Court ruling the way it did.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    At the state level, like North Carolina is doing now. A federal ruling would've been nice, but if it must happen in statehouses, then that is where voting rights activists must concentrate their efforts.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      Yeah it's what'll have to happen now absent a plan like Warren's at the federal level [0] (though even this only deals with federal elections). The issue is the same people you have to convince to stop gerrymandering are the people currently doing it to protect their own electoral prospects! [0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-democracy-6867ec1bcd3c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem... edit: It only directly deals with federal elections. She does have plans to get states to follow along but there's not as much power to directly force them.
- gizmo385 7y ago
  An issue for proposals that seek to ban gerrymandering is that it is quite difficult to quantify and measure how "gerrymandered" a particular district is, since it all depends on what your goal is. Are you trying to do blind population representation? Are you trying to "groups" of people (for some definition of "group"), etc. FiveThirtyEight did a good podcast series on gerrymandering that discusses a lot of these problems (and potential solutions to them): https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    You'll get edge cases, but in a lot of gerrymandering situations it's clear enough even if it can't be perfectly quantified. We've got SCOTUS precedent for this sort of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      SCOTUS recently said partisan gerrymanders were non-justiciable which as far as I can tell basically shuts the book on it until the balance on the court changes.
      - lalaithion 7y ago
        If congress passes a law that says "Partisan gerrymandering is illegal, the courts can determine if a district is gerrymandered", then that would be enough to make partisan gerrymanders justiciable.
        sdenton4 7y ago
        Not exactly. There's still state-by-state work happening on this front, which can still make a big difference. And there's hope: Voting fairness is something that the republican voters seem to respond to, even as their representatives seek to claw it back, as the case in Florida nicely illustrates.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Voter ID laws and Poll closures both target specific voting blocs with strong party affiliations intentionally and (often) explicitly. Both make it harder to vote. In a perfect world ID laws could be ok but it would require a huge project to ensure every legal voter had some form of ID, eg. going door to door to ensure people who have trouble getting to out of the way DMV locations don't get left out and assistance with gathering any required documents, so far none of them have included this crucial step. It doesn't help that the number of voter fraud incidents is vanishingly small so the supposed issue voter ID laws are supposed to be addressing is a lie.
  - arkh 7y ago
    Maybe people could how it's done in other countries. Here in France: when I move to a new city I go register with an ID. Then before elections I receive a voting card. Also: elections are on Sunday so most working people can go vote if they want to.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      I'm not 100% clear on what you mean, sounds like automatic voter registration, ie when you go to the DMV to get your license/ID you're automatically registered to vote? That would help a lot and I'd love to see it but it only deals with one side and doesn't solve the issue of people who are legally able to vote but don't have a current ID. I'd also love to see election day moved to a Sunday or be made a federal holiday with some requirement that everyone be given sufficient (potentially paid?) time to vote.
      - taborj 7y ago
        Oregon has a "motor voter" act, where you are automatically registered to vote if you have a driver's license (and are of age). We also do vote by mail, so it doesn't matter when the election day is. Just send in (or drop off) your ballot before voting closes.
      - arkh 7y ago
        > when you go to the DMV to get your license/ID you're automatically registered to vote? No. First thing to understand is you are required to have a valid ID (ID card, passport or driver's license) so almost everyone has at least an ID card (even children). You have to go register to be able to vote in a city. You don't have to change when you move but it is easier to vote where you live instead of going back to where you lived 3 years ago.
mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
How exactly do you think she will execute that plan? Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted on by the public, for example. Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering much easier. Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or gives enough detail of how they would be executed.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Restoring the full Voting Rights Act would be a good start. SCOTUS essentially said "this is out of date, therefore unenforceable." Then challenged congress to pass an updated one, but they have not. Some of the stuff going on was illegal under the VRA for the states it touched. I'd like to see them pass an updated one that impacts all 50 states equally, it would be much harder for SCOTUS to find it outdated then.
- munk-a 7y ago
  This is a super valid question given all the obstructionism that's likely to come out of any attempt to reform the system - that said I'd take a politician who recognizes the importance of this over one who is happy to wallow in the corruption any day.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > How exactly do you think she will execute that plan? Like most Presidential plans, it requires Congressional support, but beyond that it's not unusually difficult; while the feds can't do it for all elections easily, Art. I S4 gives Congress the power to make or alter regularions for House elections superceding state rules and Congress can also adjust the safe harbor rules for considering Presidential electoral votes properly given to use Presidential elections as a hammer, and states are unlikely to separate out qualifications for different offices to limit the effect of such federal regulations, because it would radically increase the administrative complexity of elections.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  There's the most power on the level of federal elections where congress has the power to dictate the "time, place, and manner" at any time (Article 1 Section 4). So for the whole of Congress they have pretty full and broad powers to make whatever they want happen. To get similar things at the state levels there's the ever useful strategy of just dangling a large pot of money for states. And ballot measures aren't completely binding they can be modified by the legislature of the individual states. I do think money in politics is a big issue but with Citizens United it's hard to do anything about that since "spending money is speech" means there's very very little wiggle room in the 1st amendment for putting a stopper on the geyser of corporate money. [1] [0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-democracy-6867ec1bcd3c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem... [1] Is a real messy problem. Personally I think corporations getting the full rights of citizens is a bit bonkers and I wish there was an easy way to draw a line between people collectively pooling their money for speech and a corporation doing the same thing. Maybe some test around profit making or something to tamp down on the feedback loop of companies spending money to make way more money in return from legislative changes.
saturdaysaint 7y ago
FWIW, Hillary Clinton had a serious, detailed voting rights reform plan that was clearly one of her top priorities. Liberals who were convinced into believing that free college and another radical health care overhaul should be prioritized when basic voting rights stood precariously in the balance were played in my opinion.
- sdenton4 7y ago
  whynotboth.gif?

by rtkwe 7y ago

js2 7y ago

FWIW, Buttigieg has been saying the same thing since the beginning of his campaign. https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105 https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105

dublinben 7y ago
So did Lawrence Lessig in his ill-fated campaign in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_president...

bilbo0s 7y ago

I don't know about the rest of it, but gerrymandering definitely needs to go. Getting rid of gerrymandering is nothing but a "win" for every American voter regardless of political affiliation.

mehrdadn 7y ago
I don't know how it will ever go away with the Supreme Court ruling the way it did.
- Frondo 7y ago
  At the state level, like North Carolina is doing now. A federal ruling would've been nice, but if it must happen in statehouses, then that is where voting rights activists must concentrate their efforts.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Yeah it's what'll have to happen now absent a plan like Warren's at the federal level [0] (though even this only deals with federal elections). The issue is the same people you have to convince to stop gerrymandering are the people currently doing it to protect their own electoral prospects! [0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-democracy-6867ec1bcd3c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem... edit: It only directly deals with federal elections. She does have plans to get states to follow along but there's not as much power to directly force them.
gizmo385 7y ago
An issue for proposals that seek to ban gerrymandering is that it is quite difficult to quantify and measure how "gerrymandered" a particular district is, since it all depends on what your goal is. Are you trying to do blind population representation? Are you trying to "groups" of people (for some definition of "group"), etc. FiveThirtyEight did a good podcast series on gerrymandering that discusses a lot of these problems (and potential solutions to them): https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  You'll get edge cases, but in a lot of gerrymandering situations it's clear enough even if it can't be perfectly quantified. We've got SCOTUS precedent for this sort of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    SCOTUS recently said partisan gerrymanders were non-justiciable which as far as I can tell basically shuts the book on it until the balance on the court changes.
    - lalaithion 7y ago
      If congress passes a law that says "Partisan gerrymandering is illegal, the courts can determine if a district is gerrymandered", then that would be enough to make partisan gerrymanders justiciable.
      - sdenton4 7y ago
        Not exactly. There's still state-by-state work happening on this front, which can still make a big difference. And there's hope: Voting fairness is something that the republican voters seem to respond to, even as their representatives seek to claw it back, as the case in Florida nicely illustrates.
rtkwe 7y ago
Voter ID laws and Poll closures both target specific voting blocs with strong party affiliations intentionally and (often) explicitly. Both make it harder to vote. In a perfect world ID laws could be ok but it would require a huge project to ensure every legal voter had some form of ID, eg. going door to door to ensure people who have trouble getting to out of the way DMV locations don't get left out and assistance with gathering any required documents, so far none of them have included this crucial step. It doesn't help that the number of voter fraud incidents is vanishingly small so the supposed issue voter ID laws are supposed to be addressing is a lie.
- arkh 7y ago
  Maybe people could how it's done in other countries. Here in France: when I move to a new city I go register with an ID. Then before elections I receive a voting card. Also: elections are on Sunday so most working people can go vote if they want to.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    I'm not 100% clear on what you mean, sounds like automatic voter registration, ie when you go to the DMV to get your license/ID you're automatically registered to vote? That would help a lot and I'd love to see it but it only deals with one side and doesn't solve the issue of people who are legally able to vote but don't have a current ID. I'd also love to see election day moved to a Sunday or be made a federal holiday with some requirement that everyone be given sufficient (potentially paid?) time to vote.
    - taborj 7y ago
      Oregon has a "motor voter" act, where you are automatically registered to vote if you have a driver's license (and are of age). We also do vote by mail, so it doesn't matter when the election day is. Just send in (or drop off) your ballot before voting closes.
    - arkh 7y ago
      > when you go to the DMV to get your license/ID you're automatically registered to vote? No. First thing to understand is you are required to have a valid ID (ID card, passport or driver's license) so almost everyone has at least an ID card (even children). You have to go register to be able to vote in a city. You don't have to change when you move but it is easier to vote where you live instead of going back to where you lived 3 years ago.

mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago

How exactly do you think she will execute that plan? Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted on by the public, for example. Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering much easier. Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or gives enough detail of how they would be executed.

Someone1234 7y ago
Restoring the full Voting Rights Act would be a good start. SCOTUS essentially said "this is out of date, therefore unenforceable." Then challenged congress to pass an updated one, but they have not. Some of the stuff going on was illegal under the VRA for the states it touched. I'd like to see them pass an updated one that impacts all 50 states equally, it would be much harder for SCOTUS to find it outdated then.
munk-a 7y ago
This is a super valid question given all the obstructionism that's likely to come out of any attempt to reform the system - that said I'd take a politician who recognizes the importance of this over one who is happy to wallow in the corruption any day.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> How exactly do you think she will execute that plan? Like most Presidential plans, it requires Congressional support, but beyond that it's not unusually difficult; while the feds can't do it for all elections easily, Art. I S4 gives Congress the power to make or alter regularions for House elections superceding state rules and Congress can also adjust the safe harbor rules for considering Presidential electoral votes properly given to use Presidential elections as a hammer, and states are unlikely to separate out qualifications for different offices to limit the effect of such federal regulations, because it would radically increase the administrative complexity of elections.
rtkwe 7y ago
There's the most power on the level of federal elections where congress has the power to dictate the "time, place, and manner" at any time (Article 1 Section 4). So for the whole of Congress they have pretty full and broad powers to make whatever they want happen. To get similar things at the state levels there's the ever useful strategy of just dangling a large pot of money for states. And ballot measures aren't completely binding they can be modified by the legislature of the individual states. I do think money in politics is a big issue but with Citizens United it's hard to do anything about that since "spending money is speech" means there's very very little wiggle room in the 1st amendment for putting a stopper on the geyser of corporate money. [1] [0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-democracy-6867ec1bcd3c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem... [1] Is a real messy problem. Personally I think corporations getting the full rights of citizens is a bit bonkers and I wish there was an easy way to draw a line between people collectively pooling their money for speech and a corporation doing the same thing. Maybe some test around profit making or something to tamp down on the feedback loop of companies spending money to make way more money in return from legislative changes.

saturdaysaint 7y ago

FWIW, Hillary Clinton had a serious, detailed voting rights reform plan that was clearly one of her top priorities. Liberals who were convinced into believing that free college and another radical health care overhaul should be prioritized when basic voting rights stood precariously in the balance were played in my opinion.

sdenton4 7y ago
whynotboth.gif?