Are there people who believe that gerrymandering is bad, no matter who does it?
Because gerrymandering is politicians picking their voters, rather than the other way around.
It's bad whether Dems do it or GOP. The real divide is not rank-and-file Democrats vs. Republicans, it is elites and politicians vs. the people. And that is why gerrymandering almost always involves protecting incumbents, even of opposite party.
Gerrymandering is picking your voters, sure, but those voters are at least existent. It’s far less of a problem than literally importing voters by the million each year.
Sure but it is difficult to define what is gerrymandering vs. redistricting based on competing priorities. Not sure how to get around it without some nationally imposed standard.
I would prefer if property owners could choose which district they belong to, not the legislature. Obviously the legislature would have to set up the system for that, which still leaves it open to bias.
Firstly if only one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't the second party is going to be honorable losers.
Secondly obvious gerrymandering is obvious but subtle gerrymandering is not and it can be unclear if a state is being gerrymandered or ungerrymandered. Metrics like efficiency gap aren't great because you can have situations where gerrymandering actually improves those metrics. For example if the parties in a state are really well mixed but one party has an edge almost everywhere then it will have a huge efficiency gap for the minority party and gerrymandering would improve that metric. So basically I don't take accusations of gerrymandering very seriously unless the district map just looks ridiculous.
The problem is you really can't. As I said obvious gerrymandering is obvious but there's no canonically fair district map. Two reasonable looking district maps can differ by a seat or two. Who can say which is the fair map and which is the gerrymandered map. Not experts; if the last two years have taught us anything is that experts are a tool of power rather than a source of truth.
This is leftist horseshit to be frank. The actual reason they want this is to further obfuscate governance from the people. Senators are easily accountable to the people of their state because there's only two of them. If one of them pisses you off you vote him out next term and that's that.
Fifteen hundred house reps would be a nightmare. The larger any governing body becomes, the more corrupt it becomes.
... what? That makes no sense. It would be a net gain for the bribers and usurists. In exchange for paying out four or five times the bribes, which is easy since these freaking people only cost a quarter mil, and in exchange they get a nearly infinite smokescreen for shady behavior.
These days if a dozen corrupt reps get taken down it can change votes. With fifteen hundred it wouldn't matter. Hell you'd have to create an entire federal agency just to stalk these people and surveil them just to stop the insider stock trading.
No. It's bad enough for California to already get an extra one seat due purely to sheer volume of illegals. FUCK expanding that AND not having it cannibalize other illegal-beacon potential seats.
When republicans do, its "gerrymandering". When dems do it, its "fortification".
Are there people who believe that gerrymandering is bad, no matter who does it?
Because gerrymandering is politicians picking their voters, rather than the other way around.
It's bad whether Dems do it or GOP. The real divide is not rank-and-file Democrats vs. Republicans, it is elites and politicians vs. the people. And that is why gerrymandering almost always involves protecting incumbents, even of opposite party.
Gerrymandering is picking your voters, sure, but those voters are at least existent. It’s far less of a problem than literally importing voters by the million each year.
Sure but it is difficult to define what is gerrymandering vs. redistricting based on competing priorities. Not sure how to get around it without some nationally imposed standard.
I would prefer if property owners could choose which district they belong to, not the legislature. Obviously the legislature would have to set up the system for that, which still leaves it open to bias.
There's a couple issues I think.
Firstly if only one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't the second party is going to be honorable losers.
Secondly obvious gerrymandering is obvious but subtle gerrymandering is not and it can be unclear if a state is being gerrymandered or ungerrymandered. Metrics like efficiency gap aren't great because you can have situations where gerrymandering actually improves those metrics. For example if the parties in a state are really well mixed but one party has an edge almost everywhere then it will have a huge efficiency gap for the minority party and gerrymandering would improve that metric. So basically I don't take accusations of gerrymandering very seriously unless the district map just looks ridiculous.
Agreed. It needs to end in its entirety.
The problem is you really can't. As I said obvious gerrymandering is obvious but there's no canonically fair district map. Two reasonable looking district maps can differ by a seat or two. Who can say which is the fair map and which is the gerrymandered map. Not experts; if the last two years have taught us anything is that experts are a tool of power rather than a source of truth.
HNNNG. Whatever it is, it's probably based, if Vox hates it.
So...not a threat at all then
This is leftist horseshit to be frank. The actual reason they want this is to further obfuscate governance from the people. Senators are easily accountable to the people of their state because there's only two of them. If one of them pisses you off you vote him out next term and that's that.
Fifteen hundred house reps would be a nightmare. The larger any governing body becomes, the more corrupt it becomes.
... what? That makes no sense. It would be a net gain for the bribers and usurists. In exchange for paying out four or five times the bribes, which is easy since these freaking people only cost a quarter mil, and in exchange they get a nearly infinite smokescreen for shady behavior.
These days if a dozen corrupt reps get taken down it can change votes. With fifteen hundred it wouldn't matter. Hell you'd have to create an entire federal agency just to stalk these people and surveil them just to stop the insider stock trading.
No. It's bad enough for California to already get an extra one seat due purely to sheer volume of illegals. FUCK expanding that AND not having it cannibalize other illegal-beacon potential seats.