4 ms·

I really don't understand how US citizens tolerate non democratic nonsense like Gerrymandering. Today there is no technical reason why votes couldn't be "poole

I really don't understand how US citizens tolerate non democratic nonsense like Gerrymandering. Today there is no technical reason why votes couldn't be "pooled up" to whatever an election is about (e.g. for presidential election pool up on a whole US level, this would give every US citizen the same voting power no matter where they live and remove anti-democtratic problems like the electoral collage, uneven value of the vote etc.

nh23423fefe 3y ago
I tolerate it because i dont care. politics is a random walk. caring seems like delusion to me.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  must be nice
  - davidktr 3y ago
    I started seing politics the same way: lol don't care. I used to consume loads political news, followed the developments within the national parties, tried to understand in good faith the reasoning behind various positions. You know what? None of this matters. Nothing I'll ever do, say, think, will ever convince a politician of anything. I have 0, zilch, none whatsoever influence on politics, regional, state, national, supranational. Public politics is for show only. The real deals are done behind closed doors. I don't need these people, and they don't need me (except my money, of course).
  - nh23423fefe 3y ago
    what prevents you from adopting the same position? "civic duty to remain informed?" thats fake
    - splendor_spoon 3y ago
      For many people it is the fact their lives are seriously impacted by the political outcomes these gerrymandered elections precipitate. You know, like the government making their personal medical decisions rather than their doctor.
      - nh23423fefe 3y ago
        Is there anyone who isn't seriously impacted by the government? It seems like you are just restating my position.
jawns 3y ago
My fellow US citizens can't even seem to wrap their minds around something as simple as ranked-choice voting, where instead of selecting the candidate you like best, you instead order the candidates based on how much you like them. It's an incredibly simple, intuitive change that has the potential to increase overall happiness with the results and disincentivize extremism. Yet it has been an uphill battle to get ranked-choice voting adopted, and some states and municipalities have even had to revert back to first-past-the-post voting after an outcry from voters. If voters can't wrap their heads around that, I hardly think they would be able to follow along with the mathematical principles outlined in the Quanta article.
tasty_freeze 3y ago
There are three categories of people: (1) those who don't think about it much if at all, which is probably the majority of people (2) those who understand it but benefit from it so want to keep it (3) those who understand it and want to change it but don't have the influence to get it changed The supreme court ruled that it is 100% kosher for states to gerrymander for the purpose of consolidating power and excluding other parties. It is not legal to gerrymander to disenfranchise minority groups, but frequently they amount to the same thing. The only way to change it would be for some novel legal argument to come before the supreme court that convinces them that their previous decision was wrong (very unlikely), or for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The latter is not going to happen because the current system is designed in part to make those seats "safe".

nh23423fefe 3y ago

I tolerate it because i dont care. politics is a random walk. caring seems like delusion to me.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
must be nice
- davidktr 3y ago
  I started seing politics the same way: lol don't care. I used to consume loads political news, followed the developments within the national parties, tried to understand in good faith the reasoning behind various positions. You know what? None of this matters. Nothing I'll ever do, say, think, will ever convince a politician of anything. I have 0, zilch, none whatsoever influence on politics, regional, state, national, supranational. Public politics is for show only. The real deals are done behind closed doors. I don't need these people, and they don't need me (except my money, of course).
- nh23423fefe 3y ago
  what prevents you from adopting the same position? "civic duty to remain informed?" thats fake
  - splendor_spoon 3y ago
    For many people it is the fact their lives are seriously impacted by the political outcomes these gerrymandered elections precipitate. You know, like the government making their personal medical decisions rather than their doctor.
    - nh23423fefe 3y ago
      Is there anyone who isn't seriously impacted by the government? It seems like you are just restating my position.

jawns 3y ago

My fellow US citizens can't even seem to wrap their minds around something as simple as ranked-choice voting, where instead of selecting the candidate you like best, you instead order the candidates based on how much you like them. It's an incredibly simple, intuitive change that has the potential to increase overall happiness with the results and disincentivize extremism. Yet it has been an uphill battle to get ranked-choice voting adopted, and some states and municipalities have even had to revert back to first-past-the-post voting after an outcry from voters. If voters can't wrap their heads around that, I hardly think they would be able to follow along with the mathematical principles outlined in the Quanta article.

tasty_freeze 3y ago

There are three categories of people: (1) those who don't think about it much if at all, which is probably the majority of people (2) those who understand it but benefit from it so want to keep it (3) those who understand it and want to change it but don't have the influence to get it changed The supreme court ruled that it is 100% kosher for states to gerrymander for the purpose of consolidating power and excluding other parties. It is not legal to gerrymander to disenfranchise minority groups, but frequently they amount to the same thing. The only way to change it would be for some novel legal argument to come before the supreme court that convinces them that their previous decision was wrong (very unlikely), or for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The latter is not going to happen because the current system is designed in part to make those seats "safe".