3 ms·

I'm not really an expert on the issue, but there's this suggestion that I kinda like: let people living in a district choose to vote in the adjacent districts i

I'm not really an expert on the issue, but there's this suggestion that I kinda like: let people living in a district choose to vote in the adjacent districts if they want to do so. This "blurs" the arbitrary lines a bit. Also, this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I actually kinda like gerrymandering. In the sense that I like the fact that it exposes the absurdity of counting votes and claiming that it somehow represents the voice of the people. The outcome is clearly very dependent on what voting method is used, how the districts maps are drawn, who is eligible to vote, etc. It's all just vanity of vanities.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
if you enable to choose districts freely this can be mass gamed.
Loughla 4y ago
>it exposes the absurdity of counting votes and claiming that it somehow represents the voice of the people. I actually 100% disagree with this sentence. I do not, honestly, believe it exposes that. My experience with people who vote is that they harangue about the "other side" gerrymandering, but when their preferred candidate wins their district, it's because voting works. I genuinely believe people are either (a) willfully ignorant, or (b) pants-on-head idiotic when it comes to this issue.
- hannasanarion 4y ago
  There is no "both sides" to be had here. Republican candidates winning Staten Island sometimes is not gerrymandering. The Republican National Committee hiring gerrymandering consultant Thomas Hofeller in 2009 to draw them maps of Wisconsin and North Carolina that will give them absolute supermajorities even if they lose the popular vote by a wide margin, and then using those supermajorities to strip incoming Democratic governors of all of their powers thus instituting permanent one-party rule forever, that's gerrymandering.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    What if I told you FiveThirtyEight’s ongoing investigation into gerrymandering is finding that the Democratic Party is gerrymandering much more than the Republican Party? 538 is a left-leaning site too. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/?cid=rrpromo https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps...
    - corrral 4y ago
      > is finding that the Democratic Party is gerrymandering much more than the Republican Party Are those findings somewhere else? That particular page does not clearly support that claim.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        You should go look. They're making a claim and showing their work, and when you make a opposite claim, if you've looked, you'll have work to show.
        corrral 4y ago
        I did go look. If the claim made is supported by that page, I sure didn't see it. You may also go look. We're all using the same link here, and it's already been supplied. [EDIT] Incidentally, I'm not making "the opposite claim". I'm saying I can't find support for their claim (or the opposite, in fact!) on the link they, not I, supplied. That is not the same thing as making the opposite claim.
        cjsplat 4y ago
        In 2020, 222 of 435 seats were D, so 51%. The popular vote was 51.5% D, so the D's should have an extra 2 seats. In contrast, 538's analysis shows that the R's have an advantage of 52% of the seats 538 identifies as "leaning" (with 68 seats left to have lines set). 538 shows the D's doing slightly better so far in the current redistricting balance, but they are still behind the R's on balance. You need to read 538's work if you think corrral is wrong.
- corrral 4y ago
  It's local lingo. From Wikipedia: > A distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "representative democracy." The term "representative democracy" is typical in poli-sci circles and basically everywhere that's not the US, but I don't think that's actually the distinction the poster was looking for—some kind of constitution or other super-law that's relatively hard to change, plus strong rule of law (which is more about practices and norms than about what's written on some paper), seem much more important for preserving minority interests.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

if you enable to choose districts freely this can be mass gamed.

Loughla 4y ago

>it exposes the absurdity of counting votes and claiming that it somehow represents the voice of the people. I actually 100% disagree with this sentence. I do not, honestly, believe it exposes that. My experience with people who vote is that they harangue about the "other side" gerrymandering, but when their preferred candidate wins their district, it's because voting works. I genuinely believe people are either (a) willfully ignorant, or (b) pants-on-head idiotic when it comes to this issue.

hannasanarion 4y ago
There is no "both sides" to be had here. Republican candidates winning Staten Island sometimes is not gerrymandering. The Republican National Committee hiring gerrymandering consultant Thomas Hofeller in 2009 to draw them maps of Wisconsin and North Carolina that will give them absolute supermajorities even if they lose the popular vote by a wide margin, and then using those supermajorities to strip incoming Democratic governors of all of their powers thus instituting permanent one-party rule forever, that's gerrymandering.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jimbob45 4y ago
  What if I told you FiveThirtyEight’s ongoing investigation into gerrymandering is finding that the Democratic Party is gerrymandering much more than the Republican Party? 538 is a left-leaning site too. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/?cid=rrpromo https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps...
  - corrral 4y ago
    > is finding that the Democratic Party is gerrymandering much more than the Republican Party Are those findings somewhere else? That particular page does not clearly support that claim.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      You should go look. They're making a claim and showing their work, and when you make a opposite claim, if you've looked, you'll have work to show.
      - corrral 4y ago
        I did go look. If the claim made is supported by that page, I sure didn't see it. You may also go look. We're all using the same link here, and it's already been supplied. [EDIT] Incidentally, I'm not making "the opposite claim". I'm saying I can't find support for their claim (or the opposite, in fact!) on the link they, not I, supplied. That is not the same thing as making the opposite claim.
      - cjsplat 4y ago
        In 2020, 222 of 435 seats were D, so 51%. The popular vote was 51.5% D, so the D's should have an extra 2 seats. In contrast, 538's analysis shows that the R's have an advantage of 52% of the seats 538 identifies as "leaning" (with 68 seats left to have lines set). 538 shows the D's doing slightly better so far in the current redistricting balance, but they are still behind the R's on balance. You need to read 538's work if you think corrral is wrong.
corrral 4y ago
It's local lingo. From Wikipedia: > A distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "representative democracy." The term "representative democracy" is typical in poli-sci circles and basically everywhere that's not the US, but I don't think that's actually the distinction the poster was looking for—some kind of constitution or other super-law that's relatively hard to change, plus strong rule of law (which is more about practices and norms than about what's written on some paper), seem much more important for preserving minority interests.