5 ms·

> Both parties need to learn that if you lose it’s because voters just didn’t like you that much. What you're saying is only true in a dream world where gerrym

> Both parties need to learn that if you lose it’s because voters just didn’t like you that much. What you're saying is only true in a dream world where gerrymandering, closing polling places, and preventing access to ballot boxes (in-person or otherwise) isn't happening. Unfortunately this isn't the case. So, no, you are wrong.

8note 5y ago
Voters still ultimately decide. Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win
- andrewjf 5y ago
  Not buying it. The races are so polarized that it basically doesn’t matter who runs at all, which is why so much focus is on voter suppression and gerrymandering.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win Does that sentence not completely contradict itself? How often in modern times has a Republican president won a majority of the popular vote? Seems like the will of the people is not consistently respected, and even if people like you then you may very well lose. Especially if the people that like you are urban voters.
nxm 5y ago
By gerrymandering I hope you’re including Democrats in NY state
- andrewjf 5y ago
  Sure, for every NY, and Maryland, etc. there’s a Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, etc. the parties are not equal here, this is way more prevalent among republicans in swing states. It’s a serious problem for all citizens, but republicans are incentivized to keep doing it.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Instead of trying to "both sides" gerrymandering, why don't you work out how many votes it takes on average for a Democrat to win an election, and how many it takes a Republican. With that information, you can infer which party has the most motivation to end gerrymandering.
  - koolba 5y ago
    There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Large scale change is supposed to require multiple types of majority, not just a snap mob decision. That’s a feature, not a bug.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      > You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Millions of votes of a difference and complete capture of many states. My vote, living in Massachusetts, has no value in the presidential election because there’s a 100% chance it’ll be blue.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. It is a flaw. Republican votes in California count for much less than Democratic votes in Wyoming. It's a national election, the counting should be done nationally. We did away with states voting for Senators, it's time to do the same for President.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You make it sound like the number of states has always been the same, and cannot change. In reality, Congress gets to decide which states to add (and which potential states to deny), and it does so with deliberate consideration of how the electoral votes would be affected. One could even argue that states gerrymander their own electoral vote by choosing to give all their electors to the plurality winner within their state, when they could choose to assign electors proportionally instead. They don't literally draw up per-elector districts to produce this skewed result, but the result is the same as a very skilled after-the-fact gerrymander, so I think it's a reasonable comparison. Anyway, I wasn't just talking about gerrymandering at the Presidential level. The problem exists in the individual state legislatures too (although it's hard to calculate an average across different states), and in Congress. For example, an interesting analysis[0] from 2016 found that: > In the past four congressional elections, then, Republicans, as the party with the majority in the House, received a “seats bonus,” wherein members of their party secured a larger share of the seats in the chamber than the share of votes won nationwide. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-congress/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-b...

8note 5y ago

Voters still ultimately decide. Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win

andrewjf 5y ago
Not buying it. The races are so polarized that it basically doesn’t matter who runs at all, which is why so much focus is on voter suppression and gerrymandering.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win Does that sentence not completely contradict itself? How often in modern times has a Republican president won a majority of the popular vote? Seems like the will of the people is not consistently respected, and even if people like you then you may very well lose. Especially if the people that like you are urban voters.

nxm 5y ago

By gerrymandering I hope you’re including Democrats in NY state

andrewjf 5y ago
Sure, for every NY, and Maryland, etc. there’s a Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, etc. the parties are not equal here, this is way more prevalent among republicans in swing states. It’s a serious problem for all citizens, but republicans are incentivized to keep doing it.
dane-pgp 5y ago
Instead of trying to "both sides" gerrymandering, why don't you work out how many votes it takes on average for a Democrat to win an election, and how many it takes a Republican. With that information, you can infer which party has the most motivation to end gerrymandering.
- koolba 5y ago
  There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Large scale change is supposed to require multiple types of majority, not just a snap mob decision. That’s a feature, not a bug.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    > You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Millions of votes of a difference and complete capture of many states. My vote, living in Massachusetts, has no value in the presidential election because there’s a 100% chance it’ll be blue.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. It is a flaw. Republican votes in California count for much less than Democratic votes in Wyoming. It's a national election, the counting should be done nationally. We did away with states voting for Senators, it's time to do the same for President.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You make it sound like the number of states has always been the same, and cannot change. In reality, Congress gets to decide which states to add (and which potential states to deny), and it does so with deliberate consideration of how the electoral votes would be affected. One could even argue that states gerrymander their own electoral vote by choosing to give all their electors to the plurality winner within their state, when they could choose to assign electors proportionally instead. They don't literally draw up per-elector districts to produce this skewed result, but the result is the same as a very skilled after-the-fact gerrymander, so I think it's a reasonable comparison. Anyway, I wasn't just talking about gerrymandering at the Presidential level. The problem exists in the individual state legislatures too (although it's hard to calculate an average across different states), and in Congress. For example, an interesting analysis[0] from 2016 found that: > In the past four congressional elections, then, Republicans, as the party with the majority in the House, received a “seats bonus,” wherein members of their party secured a larger share of the seats in the chamber than the share of votes won nationwide. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-congress/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-b...