Maher says USA Democracy is in its death bed. How concerned are you?

Politics & Elections
81

That is very far from what I said. I said that people in general, including Democrats, are doing a poor job of keeping their eye on the ball.

Let’s use “build the wall” as an example.

Do Republican voters approve of building a wall? Let’s say “yes”. If we surveyed them, the survey would show that they’re in favor of building a wall. That’s no surprise.

Do Republican legislators approve of building a wall? Well, they certainly say “yes”. But, I remember calls for a border-length wall since I was a child and the Republicans had two chances to do it - they were in complete control of the government from 2001-2007 and from 2017 to 2019. In neither case did they and, if you listen to hearings between Congress and the Republican-appointed heads of border security through the years, they consistently point out that it’s not cost-effective and a waste of resources compared to using that same money on other methods of reducing illegal immigration. It’s not really surprising - if you’re someone who tries to follow policy and politics - that the ball is always fumbled on this one. McConnell somehow just could never seem to bring a bill to the floor, during Trump’s term.

So are Republican legislators in favor of building a wall? Probably not. Them all’s a bunch of lying bastards, when it comes to that subject. And the right-leaning voters have failed to keep their eye on the ball. Whether the wall is really an important issue to them or not, it’s proof positive that you can’t trust those legislators to be truthful to you and your job as a voter is to find people who you can trust. If they aren’t telling you that the wall doesn’t make sense, when they should, then you should dump them or you’re a sucker.

In the case of the wall, fumbling the ball is probably all for the better. In the case of gerrymandering and election integrity, it’s not.

We’re all here all opposed to gerrymandering (some more than others but, generally, that’s true). And some legislators - Joe Manchin, for example - might also be on that side. But some aren’t.

Ultimately, the biggest political party in the country is the voters. If you view yourself as a Democrat first and a voter second then, sure, it’s no problem if they’re saying the right things and throwing out a few dog treats that make it seem like they’re doing something - so long as you don’t look too hard. But if you’re a voter first and you need to know that the systems are strong and that the people who are deciding the fate of the country are good, honest, and caring folks - I think you need to be a bit more skeptical. You should be more outraged by your own team doing bad than you are by the other side doing it. You are the one voting for your guys. It’s not Republicans’ fault.

The biggest thread on a forum that leans left, decrying hypocrisy, crimes, and unethical behavior by politicians should be about lefties. Those are the ones you can do something about. Wasting time complaining about what other people are doing at the election booth is not going to change anything in the world.

82

I guess I thought when you said

you meant that nobody is proposing any anti-gerimandering legislation. I hope you can see how I got confused.

Near as I can tell support or opposition to anti-gerrymandering legislation breaks entirely down party lines., with one cranky Republican-lite who refuses to pass it without getting agreement from the other side (which is impossible). Replacing this senator with a better one isn’t a realistic option since his replacement is guaranteed to be Republican dark. So the only realistic way of getting things done was to increase our majority. Which didn’t happen this time. The next best thing is to prevent a Republican majority and so limit the damage. Until that is taken care of our options are limited.

I feel like as if you’re saying to Zelensky, “You spend all your time attacking the Russians, when you should be working on getting the economy up and running. If you can’t get that done its your own damn fault, not theirs.”

83

And that’s just a horrible take. If you focus on attacking your own and never the other party, you only hurt your own chances. Attacking the other side is a key part of how you convince people to vote for your side. Saying it has no effect ignoring reality. Biden won because we attacked Trump. The whole reason we didn’t have a red wave this year is because non-traditional voters (mostly young people) were willing to vote against Republicans. For decades so many progressives would say both parties are the same.

Calling out the other side is how you get people riled up enough to vote. Calling our your own side is how you get people to think both sides are the same and there’s no point in voting. I’ve seen the latter time and time again.

84

The point is that he’s not saying anything new. The claim is that he’s one of the last people to catch on to what is happening. It’s not saying he’s wrong, just slow.

85

I have a sneaking suspicion that technological advancements have made gerrymandering considerably more effective and granular vs. the days when someone literally had to map out things like race, income, etc… and then draw a district on a map.

That’s why it wasn’t such a big deal until recently- neither side could do it so effectively that they could effectively skew elections such that they may be absolutely fair and above board in every other way, but end up with results that aren’t reflective of the population.

86

I can’t see how that wouldn’t be the case.

We have so much more data, we have more powerful and sophisticated computers to analyze that data, make projections, etc. They can probably even put models together that predict how demographics will shift and change districts to future-proof voters, not just drawing lines for today.

It’s more important than ever that we get a handle on this. But it’s hard. It’s like nuclear disarmament. Nobody wants to give up a potential advantage. The only way I see this ever changing is if the message can get out and people become aware of the danger.

I think it’s possible though. Show the right what the left has done in the past, and show the left what the right has done. Take advantage of the polarization that exists, use it for good. Get enough people scared and pissed off, and politicians might be forced to fix it.

87

It will not ever change because at least one group will rely on it to stay in power and they will not give it up. Their voters will not want to give it up either. A red district letting some libs even the odds? No. Freaking. Way.

Title: Experts Say GOP House Takeover Would’ve Been Impossible Without Gerrymandering

88

That can’t be true, it must be an election-denying conspiracy theory, because both sides are the same.

/s

89

This is absurd. If I thought the biggest problem was the left, I wouldn’t be on the left. I’m on the left because I think that, whatever the left’s problems, the right is doing a lot more damage to the world.

I’ll come get my own when they need gettin’, but it’s ridiculous to think I’m going to spend more time criticizing the side I agree with than the side I disagree with.

90

Indeed, much has been written about this very thing:

91

Not that I’m disagreeing, but truthout.org is hardly an unbiased source, especially w.r.t. this kind of thing.

92

And the infighting among those on the left is probably the Democrat’s greatest weakness. IMHO, only someone who wants to see the Democrats be even weaker would encourage more of it.

93

As an instructor who will teach “Intro to GIS” next semester, I hereby apologize.

94

A non-partisan electoral boundaries commission.

After every two general elections, a three-person, independent, and non-partisan electoral boundaries commission is established. The commission proposes changes to the area, boundaries and names of British Columbia’s provincial electoral districts. This ensures that each MLA represents a similar number of people.

The Legislative Assembly reviews the commission’s proposals and votes to approve them, reject them, or approve them with alterations. If the commission’s proposals are approved or approved with alterations, the government must introduce them as a Bill.

95

I admire the Canadians for having such a trustworthy system administered by trustworthy people. Here in the US, however, multi-member districts with proportional representation is by far the superior choice.

Let’s get the FRA passed and kill gerrymandering dead (waves to Wisconsin Republicans).

96

Who establishes it, who picks the three “independent and non-partisan” people, and how do they determine that they are non-partisan?

It’s not the same number of people that’s the problem. That’s easy. It’s manipulating which districts those people are in in order to secure electoral advantage that is.

So a partisan legislature could adopt a partisanly drawn map, or they could reject a non-partisanly drawn map.

It still leaves too much in the hands of people who may have motivations to not create a balanced delegation.

Then there’s the question of what outcome such a commission should be trying to get.

97

My anti-gerrymandering proposal is, in the spirit of our nation, fundamentally adversarial.

  1. Choose a single mathematical goal, such as “smallest total perimeter for all districts” or “least total distance from district centers for all voters”. It doesn’t need to be a perfect measure, but it does need to lead, generally, toward better districts, and it does need to be unambiguous.
  2. The party in power gets to draw the map, with no input from the party out of power.
  3. Once the party in power presents their map, the party out of power gets 30 days to submit a map that is at least 10% better, according to the metric. If they do so, their map becomes law. If they don’t, the in-power map becomes law.

This strongly incentives the party in power to avoid shenanigans. They can propose a mathematically perfect map and ensure it’s put in place; or they can fuck around and find out.

98

The problem with that is that it still would be pretty easy to make a map that creates a delegation that is not representative of the constituency.

The game will be to make sure that no one can get 10% better on the arbitrary metric, and the counter game will be to find a map that is. What I don’t see it doing is leading to a congressional delegation that reflects the leanings of the actual voters.

99

This is one of the distinguishing features of the American political system, as far as I can tell: it seems to me that Americans automatically reject the idea that someone can be non-partisan, or at least are highly sceptical of it. That’s not the case in other countries, such as Canada and the UK, where it is generally accepted that there are non-partisan people, even in public positions such as electoral commissions.

In Canada, the map-drawing is removed from Parliament and the provincial assemblies. The usual model is a three-person commission, composed of a superior court judge and one person nominated by the party in power, the third by the official opposition. That commission draws the maps, and they are almost invariably then accepted by the legislature. This model has been in place for decades, both federally and provincially, and has broad popular support.

Independent map commissions are part of a general policy that elections are administered by non-partisan public officials. The idea that the partisan chair of a presidential candidate’s election committee could be the state official who certifies the votes (Florida 2000), or be the one who certifies their own election (Kemp, 2018) is just mind-boggling to me. The administration of elections in Canada is non-partisan. Parties can appoint scrutineers who watch the votes being cast and the counting, but that’s the only partisan role. No elected official is involved in counting or certifying the votes.

Unless and until there is a change in the American political hyper-partisan atmosphere, it is hard to see how a neutral, non-partisan election administration could be established, unlike in Canada or the UK.

This is a fair question. The algorithm used has to be considered a neutral one. In Canada, the requirements for the map are set out in the statute which governs the particular commission.

ETA: note that judges in our system are not elected and are non-partisan.

100

You teach “Intro to Government Insurrection Scheming”? :disguised_face: