I somewhat disagree that gerrymandering is "bad", simply because it's a subjective term where what someone calls gerrymandering is redistricting they don't like. It's a political tactic that takes advantage of the sillyness of the redistricting process itself. Gerrymandering isn't any worse than redistricting in general, it's just more blatantly ridiculous. Like an obviously non-passing tranny.
Voters should choose their representatives, not representatives their voters.
I agree with that and think redistricting should be done away with or at least based on pre-existing boundaries like counties. You could also have a system where landowners can choose which district they belong to. That said I also don't think large cities should get an equal vote, so I'm perhaps not one to listen to on representation.
Even if you use some kind of algorithm, if it's possible for politicians to create districts unfavorable to some constituents and favorable to one party over another, then that is what will be done. "Unintentionally" or not.
Let me be more specific. By gerrymandering I do not mean redistricting (which is basically something you have to do), but redistricting in such a manner to help the incumbents stay in office.
Ideally, the districts should be as competitive as possible, because that forces them to listen to the people. But I do not know if that will work out well in practice.
We should have a monarchy or a theocracy. This whole voting business accomplishes nothing (since an unelected bureaucracy makes most of the decisions anyway) and only divides people.
I think democracy is a farce and most people would literally be happier living under a monarchy.
If you want a true blackpill, research Mosca's "Iron Law of Oligarchy".
No matter what the outward form of a state (or an organization), it will always be a small group of (corrupt) elites ruling the roost.
I now genuinely believe that at least 80-85% of all people in the US are basically lazy, stupid, and have ZERO awareness of anything.
That is the case everywhere. The major difference being that your media is considerably worse and more homogeneous than that of any other supposedly democratic country that I have seen, so the idiocy becomes more obvious.
I'm fine with that as long as dissidents are free to leave for places that support policies they believe in. No hermit kingdoms or island prisons. Hoppe (who I hope you have read) says people will vote with their feet and the "kingdom" with the best policies will attract the best citizens. Quite the opposite with Democracy where politicians will import the worst people to dilute the voting pool.
Gerrymandering is always bad, no matter if it's Dems or GOP doing it.
Voters should choose their representatives, not representatives their voters.
I somewhat disagree that gerrymandering is "bad", simply because it's a subjective term where what someone calls gerrymandering is redistricting they don't like. It's a political tactic that takes advantage of the sillyness of the redistricting process itself. Gerrymandering isn't any worse than redistricting in general, it's just more blatantly ridiculous. Like an obviously non-passing tranny.
I agree with that and think redistricting should be done away with or at least based on pre-existing boundaries like counties. You could also have a system where landowners can choose which district they belong to. That said I also don't think large cities should get an equal vote, so I'm perhaps not one to listen to on representation.
I've never seen a state where the districts are drawn geographically. Or even in a way that makes close to sense.
Even if you use some kind of algorithm, if it's possible for politicians to create districts unfavorable to some constituents and favorable to one party over another, then that is what will be done. "Unintentionally" or not.
Let me be more specific. By gerrymandering I do not mean redistricting (which is basically something you have to do), but redistricting in such a manner to help the incumbents stay in office.
Ideally, the districts should be as competitive as possible, because that forces them to listen to the people. But I do not know if that will work out well in practice.
Agreed. I just wish they would condemn it regardless of who is doing it
We should have a monarchy or a theocracy. This whole voting business accomplishes nothing (since an unelected bureaucracy makes most of the decisions anyway) and only divides people.
If you want a true blackpill, research Mosca's "Iron Law of Oligarchy".
No matter what the outward form of a state (or an organization), it will always be a small group of (corrupt) elites ruling the roost.
That is the case everywhere. The major difference being that your media is considerably worse and more homogeneous than that of any other supposedly democratic country that I have seen, so the idiocy becomes more obvious.
Talkin' about a blackpill.
I'm fine with that as long as dissidents are free to leave for places that support policies they believe in. No hermit kingdoms or island prisons. Hoppe (who I hope you have read) says people will vote with their feet and the "kingdom" with the best policies will attract the best citizens. Quite the opposite with Democracy where politicians will import the worst people to dilute the voting pool.
Yeah, I am wondering about what the point of it all is when voting seems to make absolutely no difference.
No different than when leftists import a new electorate every year.