2 ms·
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 ge
by 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 agoWhat 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.