7 ms·

The voting system in the US (FPTP) is fundamentally unfair. Combine with post-red-map gerrymandering, it is becoming obvious even to the people "on the wings" t

The voting system in the US (FPTP) is fundamentally unfair. Combine with post-red-map gerrymandering, it is becoming obvious even to the people "on the wings" that our election system fundamentally disenfranchises large swathes of the population. As a short hand, think "Democrats and Independents in red states" and "Republicans and Independants in blue states". Being disenfranchised sucks. The system is designed to prevent you from having any ability to even change the system by using the system. If everything is "ok", then people just ignore the political system. Buuuut... when people get scared (reasonably, or not), and the system is fundamentally unfair, their only option is violence.

colinmhayes 4y ago
I agree that this is by far the biggest problem, but I don’t see it leading to a large scale conflict for one reason. The system favors the current political elite. Notice that neither party every really talks about legitimate electoral reform. They talk about voting reform, but not the way our elections actually work. No one is talking about removing fptp, or the electoral college/senate, or moving to a proportional representation system. Without politicians to rally the masses it’s hard to see enough support.
- thechao 4y ago
  Fair voting systems need to be both fair theoretically, but also "obviously fair" to those voting. The vast majority of the electorate is poorly educated on how election system game theory works. (Which should not be surprising.) I plan to start rolling out fair systems locally (my water district) so that people can familiar with both how easy they're to use; and, more importantly, how they're obviously fair. Right now, we're looking at proportional random selection.
nverno 4y ago
I dont think the 'system' is designed to be unfair, but instead our two political parties have corrupted the voting process through gerrymandering. Then again, it's not as bad as some people seem to imply it is - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congressional-map-is-biased-toward-republicans/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congre.... We are talking about a net gain of a seat or two in either direction. If the two parties weren't so dominant this problem wouldn't be nearly as bad either. Given most Americans are independents, it would be great to see more candidates breakthrough without party alignment.
- thechao 4y ago
  The problem isn't global representation; it's local fairness. (The 538 analysis is correct in that sense.) The problem is that for any given district, the probability of overturning the gerrymander is, in practice, impossible. In states with legislatively controlled redistricting (the bulk of them) without controls on the redistricting process, the disenfranchisement is global to everyone — even if you're a blue voter in a blue district, or a red voter in a red district. The person who wins is the incumbent. For instance, based on ACS and latest CVAP, my district is ~65/35. More importantly, my representative explicitly drew several GOP contenders out of his district to seal his re-election chances. I know he did this, because he had this conversation with Abbot (Governor of Tx) while I was standing a few feet away from them. The point of a gerrymander is to maintain power, not to have some sort of ideological, or political stance.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 4y ago
The US actually has an additional issue on top of FPTP which as far as I know is unique among (supposed) democracies: a bicameral legislature where one of the houses requires a 60% supermajority to pass anything. This is such an incredibly fundamental part of the US political system that it amazes me that it isn't more widely talked about. It means the US is effectively not able to pass any laws that are even mildly controversial, because it's the only (supposedly) democratic political system in the world where the opposition party has to consent to any law. This effectively disenfranchises everyone, and is the root cause for the comically over-powerful judiciary and executive (because the legislature is structurally incapable of properly doing its job, the other state organs have to take its place lest the country be completely ungovernable). For some reason people really don't talk about this issue enough, and continue acting as though the legislature operates as it does in normal democracies, and then getting confused by its behavior. For example, lots of people ask "why doesn't the US ban guns" or "why doesn't the US legalize" abortion, and often just chalk this up to some moral failing of American culture and ideology, rather than recognizing the root cause of the issue: the US can't pass laws, at all, even broadly popular ones! Given this issue, I feel like the US is best considered a hybrid regime like Hong Kong than an actual democracy. Although at least in Hong Kong, someone is in charge...
- henryfjordan 4y ago
  Worth noting that this is the filibuster rule and it can be changed/eliminated with a 50% vote. We're only deadlocked by choice.
- krallja 4y ago
  There is no legal requirement for a 60% supermajority to pass anything in the Senate; it’s just a Senate rule. The filibuster has been modified before, and could be modified at any point in the future. I personally am a fan of leaving it, but you HAVE TO TALK. If you stop talking, you yield. If you want to grind up the gears of Congress, you have to actually do something.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    > I personally am a fan of leaving it Why?
commandlinefan 4y ago
> prevent you from having any ability to even change the system But the best solution to that is to just invert the system so that the federal government has the least impact, the states the second least, and the local municipalities the most. Which was what the last civil war was fought over.
- corrral 4y ago
  That's a very expensive solution, most likely, in terms of harm to the economy & international competitiveness. And we already have a huge problem with race-to-the-bottom dynamics when states or cities race to see who can bend over fastest in hopes of to receiving a few scraps from megacorporations. Start putting things the federal government controls in the hands of states and cities, and corporations will definitely gain more power to dictate things like environmental laws, corporate taxation, consumer protection, et c. I don't think this idea is compatible with a decent-to-live-in, modern economy and state, as nice as it may seem in the abstract.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  This is the reason California has a housing crisis. Hyper local power just leads to people in desirable areas voting themselves a handout at the expense of people who move there.

colinmhayes 4y ago

I agree that this is by far the biggest problem, but I don’t see it leading to a large scale conflict for one reason. The system favors the current political elite. Notice that neither party every really talks about legitimate electoral reform. They talk about voting reform, but not the way our elections actually work. No one is talking about removing fptp, or the electoral college/senate, or moving to a proportional representation system. Without politicians to rally the masses it’s hard to see enough support.

thechao 4y ago
Fair voting systems need to be both fair theoretically, but also "obviously fair" to those voting. The vast majority of the electorate is poorly educated on how election system game theory works. (Which should not be surprising.) I plan to start rolling out fair systems locally (my water district) so that people can familiar with both how easy they're to use; and, more importantly, how they're obviously fair. Right now, we're looking at proportional random selection.

nverno 4y ago

I dont think the 'system' is designed to be unfair, but instead our two political parties have corrupted the voting process through gerrymandering. Then again, it's not as bad as some people seem to imply it is - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congressional-map-is-biased-toward-republicans/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congre.... We are talking about a net gain of a seat or two in either direction. If the two parties weren't so dominant this problem wouldn't be nearly as bad either. Given most Americans are independents, it would be great to see more candidates breakthrough without party alignment.

thechao 4y ago
The problem isn't global representation; it's local fairness. (The 538 analysis is correct in that sense.) The problem is that for any given district, the probability of overturning the gerrymander is, in practice, impossible. In states with legislatively controlled redistricting (the bulk of them) without controls on the redistricting process, the disenfranchisement is global to everyone — even if you're a blue voter in a blue district, or a red voter in a red district. The person who wins is the incumbent. For instance, based on ACS and latest CVAP, my district is ~65/35. More importantly, my representative explicitly drew several GOP contenders out of his district to seal his re-election chances. I know he did this, because he had this conversation with Abbot (Governor of Tx) while I was standing a few feet away from them. The point of a gerrymander is to maintain power, not to have some sort of ideological, or political stance.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

School-Cotton 4y ago

The US actually has an additional issue on top of FPTP which as far as I know is unique among (supposed) democracies: a bicameral legislature where one of the houses requires a 60% supermajority to pass anything. This is such an incredibly fundamental part of the US political system that it amazes me that it isn't more widely talked about. It means the US is effectively not able to pass any laws that are even mildly controversial, because it's the only (supposedly) democratic political system in the world where the opposition party has to consent to any law. This effectively disenfranchises everyone, and is the root cause for the comically over-powerful judiciary and executive (because the legislature is structurally incapable of properly doing its job, the other state organs have to take its place lest the country be completely ungovernable). For some reason people really don't talk about this issue enough, and continue acting as though the legislature operates as it does in normal democracies, and then getting confused by its behavior. For example, lots of people ask "why doesn't the US ban guns" or "why doesn't the US legalize" abortion, and often just chalk this up to some moral failing of American culture and ideology, rather than recognizing the root cause of the issue: the US can't pass laws, at all, even broadly popular ones! Given this issue, I feel like the US is best considered a hybrid regime like Hong Kong than an actual democracy. Although at least in Hong Kong, someone is in charge...

henryfjordan 4y ago
Worth noting that this is the filibuster rule and it can be changed/eliminated with a 50% vote. We're only deadlocked by choice.
krallja 4y ago
There is no legal requirement for a 60% supermajority to pass anything in the Senate; it’s just a Senate rule. The filibuster has been modified before, and could be modified at any point in the future. I personally am a fan of leaving it, but you HAVE TO TALK. If you stop talking, you yield. If you want to grind up the gears of Congress, you have to actually do something.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  > I personally am a fan of leaving it Why?

commandlinefan 4y ago

> prevent you from having any ability to even change the system But the best solution to that is to just invert the system so that the federal government has the least impact, the states the second least, and the local municipalities the most. Which was what the last civil war was fought over.

corrral 4y ago
That's a very expensive solution, most likely, in terms of harm to the economy & international competitiveness. And we already have a huge problem with race-to-the-bottom dynamics when states or cities race to see who can bend over fastest in hopes of to receiving a few scraps from megacorporations. Start putting things the federal government controls in the hands of states and cities, and corporations will definitely gain more power to dictate things like environmental laws, corporate taxation, consumer protection, et c. I don't think this idea is compatible with a decent-to-live-in, modern economy and state, as nice as it may seem in the abstract.
colinmhayes 4y ago
This is the reason California has a housing crisis. Hyper local power just leads to people in desirable areas voting themselves a handout at the expense of people who move there.