3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThe 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.