4 ms·
That seems to me like a cherry picked metric, and in any event, canceling out isn't the point of democracy. And gerrymandering means that redistricting is also
by analog31 2y ago
That seems to me like a cherry picked metric, and in any event, canceling out isn't the point of democracy. And gerrymandering means that redistricting is also being done by an unelected and unaccountable body -- the legislature.
I'm willing to accept the risk of fair elections. This is even with the understanding that it would probably change the behavior of the parties in unpredictable ways.
Give me back my vote!
But I don't doubt that there will continue to be relentless pressure on our elective system. Democracy is fragile, and can be overthrown without violence through gradual erosion of its institutions. This is not a fault of democracy per se, because any government can be overthrown.
- rayiner 2y ago> That seems to me like a cherry picked metric It’s not. Gerrymandering arises when politicians vote with their party—it doesn’t make much sense otherwise. But if the net effect of gerrymandering doesn’t change the party representation in Congress, that’s largely a theoretical problem. > And gerrymandering means that redistricting is also being done by an unelected and unaccountable body -- the legislature. What’s the alternative? Relying on “neutral” judges or commissions to make such politically important decisions is just bunk. If there was any such thing we wouldn’t need democracy. They wouldn’t produce “fair elections,” but would instead introduce an easily manipulated process (e.g. like in California: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission https://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-cali...) that was opaque and resistant to voter pressures.