5 ms·

> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. This thread is talking

by Kamq 1y ago

> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. This thread is talking about the Senate. The senate isn't gerrymandered. Both senators are state-wide races. If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". But the last time that was an option was in 1959, and both of those are just "the entire area the US owned, but wasn't a state yet. To get senate gerrymandering, you have to go back to 1912 and the admission of New Mexico/Arizona.

Brybry 1y ago
Gerrymandering can affect voter sentiment and trigger polling location changes during redistricting, both of which can affect voter turnout[1][2][3] (though the research doesn't seem conclusive on the effect). And thinking about it more, though I haven't seen if there are studies on it: there are probably manpower/fundraising effects from gerrymandering. If you're able to protect your political power in one area that probably better enables you to amass resources to use in the area you can't gerrymander. But all that said, both parties practice gerrymandering and I don't think there's strong evidence of a significant advantage over a major party from current gerrymandering at the national level. [1] https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf [2] https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-and-lazy-legislators https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-... [3] https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-redistricting-confused-some-voters/ https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-re...
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  > On a percentage basis, over three times as many districts were competitive in states where independent commissions drew maps as in states where Republicans drew maps. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-gerrymandering-and-fair-maps-affected-battle-house https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...
  - xyzzyz 1y ago
    That’s just confusing cause and effect. If your seats are safe, you have no reason to agree to forming an independent commission. The same is true in both heavily blue and heavily red states. Are districts more competitive in states where Democrats draw maps? I don’t think so.
    - throwaway173738 1y ago
      This totally ignores values and motivations, and I would argue that only one group in your comment values winning at any cost.
      - xyzzyz 1y ago
        I don’t even know which group you mean, but “my group has good values and motivations, but the enemy group just values winning at any cost” is exactly what a total partisan who values winning at any cost would say.
        paulryanrogers 1y ago
        The evidence is that independent commissions drawing maps makes for more competitive districts. Which party is most opposed to such commissions? Which party is gleefully dismantling all accountability and oversight positions and departments? Which party is openly inviting corruption and pardoning those they should be prosecuting?
        rayiner 1y ago
        I wonder why one party would be seeking to change a civil service that’s 90% staffed by members of the other party? I guess “democracy” means Democrats running the country no matter who wins the election, right?
        int_19h 1y ago
        Democracy means "one person, one vote". We all know which party is fighting tooth and nail against that on practically every issue that affects it.
vineyardmike 1y ago
> If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". That is quite explicitly the history of the US Senate (and House), FWIW. The Connecticut Compromise was reached to give low-populations states outsized legislative power in the senate. This is the main reason the senate exists. Building on that, the 3/5th compromise was reached as part of this to give slave states outsized legislative power in the house. The state of Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, but it was later set up as an independent state in order to increase the number of anti-slavery states in the senate (the Missouri compromise).

by Kamq 1y ago

Brybry 1y ago

Gerrymandering can affect voter sentiment and trigger polling location changes during redistricting, both of which can affect voter turnout[1][2][3] (though the research doesn't seem conclusive on the effect). And thinking about it more, though I haven't seen if there are studies on it: there are probably manpower/fundraising effects from gerrymandering. If you're able to protect your political power in one area that probably better enables you to amass resources to use in the area you can't gerrymander. But all that said, both parties practice gerrymandering and I don't think there's strong evidence of a significant advantage over a major party from current gerrymandering at the national level. [1] https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf [2] https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-and-lazy-legislators https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-... [3] https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-redistricting-confused-some-voters/ https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-re...

paulryanrogers 1y ago
> On a percentage basis, over three times as many districts were competitive in states where independent commissions drew maps as in states where Republicans drew maps. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-gerrymandering-and-fair-maps-affected-battle-house https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...
- xyzzyz 1y ago
  That’s just confusing cause and effect. If your seats are safe, you have no reason to agree to forming an independent commission. The same is true in both heavily blue and heavily red states. Are districts more competitive in states where Democrats draw maps? I don’t think so.
  - throwaway173738 1y ago
    This totally ignores values and motivations, and I would argue that only one group in your comment values winning at any cost.
    - xyzzyz 1y ago
      I don’t even know which group you mean, but “my group has good values and motivations, but the enemy group just values winning at any cost” is exactly what a total partisan who values winning at any cost would say.
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        The evidence is that independent commissions drawing maps makes for more competitive districts. Which party is most opposed to such commissions? Which party is gleefully dismantling all accountability and oversight positions and departments? Which party is openly inviting corruption and pardoning those they should be prosecuting?
        rayiner 1y ago
        I wonder why one party would be seeking to change a civil service that’s 90% staffed by members of the other party? I guess “democracy” means Democrats running the country no matter who wins the election, right?
        int_19h 1y ago
        Democracy means "one person, one vote". We all know which party is fighting tooth and nail against that on practically every issue that affects it.

vineyardmike 1y ago

> If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". That is quite explicitly the history of the US Senate (and House), FWIW. The Connecticut Compromise was reached to give low-populations states outsized legislative power in the senate. This is the main reason the senate exists. Building on that, the 3/5th compromise was reached as part of this to give slave states outsized legislative power in the house. The state of Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, but it was later set up as an independent state in order to increase the number of anti-slavery states in the senate (the Missouri compromise).