3 ms·

538 is claiming that dems are fighting back in the gerrymandering war this election more than they have in the past. Not that they gerrymander more than republi

538 is claiming that dems are fighting back in the gerrymandering war this election more than they have in the past. Not that they gerrymander more than republicans, just that they are gerrymandering more than they did in the past. I don't see how anyone could expect any other outcome once gerrymandering begins and is seen as acceptable.

jimbob45 4y ago
That’s exactly what I wish we’d codify: gerrymander as much as you possibly can and don’t be bashful about it. Having this ridiculous system where each side gerrymanders just as much as the other but then stops when they get caught accomplishes nothing. If they’d just concede the morality of the matter and let the government dictate the morality (like it should), then we’d stop with this silly finger-pointing.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > let the government dictate the morality (like it should) Here's a radical alternative, though: Let the people decide what is moral, and force the government to follow those moral principles. I'm hopeful that if you asked people "Do you want uncompetitive elections where the government chooses its electors rather than the electors choosing the government?" a super-majority would say "No!". Unfortunately that's not really the question that gets asked at election time. Instead we end up with a terrible Prisoner's Dilemma where the question is more like "Do you want a fair system that lets the other side win more often?", but such a question is itself a result of the systems that the major parties have put in place, and in any case fails the Rawls "veil of ignorance" requirement for a moral question.
- hannasanarion 4y ago
  What you're describing as "democratic gerrymanders" are what normal people would call "majority rule". More blue districts are being created because Republican-favoring minority-rule gerrymanders have been done away with, and the playing field is being made level.

jimbob45 4y ago

That’s exactly what I wish we’d codify: gerrymander as much as you possibly can and don’t be bashful about it. Having this ridiculous system where each side gerrymanders just as much as the other but then stops when they get caught accomplishes nothing. If they’d just concede the morality of the matter and let the government dictate the morality (like it should), then we’d stop with this silly finger-pointing.

dane-pgp 4y ago
> let the government dictate the morality (like it should) Here's a radical alternative, though: Let the people decide what is moral, and force the government to follow those moral principles. I'm hopeful that if you asked people "Do you want uncompetitive elections where the government chooses its electors rather than the electors choosing the government?" a super-majority would say "No!". Unfortunately that's not really the question that gets asked at election time. Instead we end up with a terrible Prisoner's Dilemma where the question is more like "Do you want a fair system that lets the other side win more often?", but such a question is itself a result of the systems that the major parties have put in place, and in any case fails the Rawls "veil of ignorance" requirement for a moral question.
hannasanarion 4y ago
What you're describing as "democratic gerrymanders" are what normal people would call "majority rule". More blue districts are being created because Republican-favoring minority-rule gerrymanders have been done away with, and the playing field is being made level.