No, it’s about winning votes. Gerrymandering affects things at the margins. If Congress is contested by about 10-20 seats, then sure, gerrymandering can make the difference. but it’s not gerrymandering that created 250 R+1 or better districts. It’s not gerrymandering that created 25 red states and 5 more states that are red more often than they are blue. The cause of those structural problems is that the Democrats haven’t figured out how to appeal to voters outside of urban centers.
And again, there’s the damage to the brand done by governing ambitions exceeding fiscal realities. Democrats have always prided themselves on being more responsible than Republicans, taxing and spending rather than borrowing and spending. It’s true, that is more responsible. What they haven’t figured out though is that tax revenues can be maxed out and they’ve reached that point in a lot of states and have arguably reached the political maximum of revenue federally, if not the economic maximum. What happens then is that when an emergency happens and you need money, you can’t get it because you can’t raise taxes anymore. Much was made of Texas’ deficit problem as a counter to the criticism of California and Illinois. But Texas could have simply solved their budget problem, had they chosen to, by raising some revenue. It’s a rich state with low taxes. There was never any danger of bankruptcy because if push came to shove, the money was there for the taking. California and Illinois, on the other hand, have obligations that they can’t afford, ever, no matter how much more blood they try to squeeze out of the rock. That’s what a real fiscal problem looks like. And such fiscal problems are only present in blue states.
“Gerrymandering [only] affects things at the margins,” is patently untrue, and misunderstands what gerrymandering* is.* One does not rig election districts for a mere 5-point advantage when a 20-point advantage is mathematically possible.
Raising taxes does not shrink the economy. It can actually grow it, as state employees spend their pay. It is entirely possible to collect more tax, watch the economy grow, and find your new tax base higher in purchasing power yet the same proportion of the overall economy.
Gerrymandering at present is ridiculous, the excuses of right-wing apologists aside. What has to happen is this:
Point out the real difference in priorities and in degree of political fanaticism between party pols and the people who actually vote for them. Todd Akin is a case of this, but he can’t be treated as a singular nincompoop. Go after the structure that selects and promotes his type.
Not only point out that are close to half of the country “left of center,” but make reasoned arguments as for why this is reasonable.
Point out that the present system leaves much of the country locked into a Conservative Movement caucus as much as the Communist Party locked down Russia.* Not* the GOP; not the party of Lincoln, or TR, or Eisenhower; not even the party of Bob Dole–the problem is the litmus-tested, dogmatic conservative caucus that demands also total one-party rule. This is an actual thing that is actually happening.
Make the case that democracy needs those alternative viewpoints–a case that Wm. F. Buckley made all the time when his conservative movement was in the minority. A dictatorship of “the right” is as noxious as a dictatorship of “the left.”
In states that can amend their state constitutions by referendum, use that process to change how legislatures are elected. The simplest answer may be to move to redistricting by non-partisan bodies. But if you like, you can build a system with large multi-member districts and proportional representation, such that it can’t be gerrymandered to any great extent.
THIS CAN PROBABLY BE DONE BETTER BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. If a new Ross Perot calls for it, it’s independent reform guy. If the Democrats call for it, it’s seen as whining by whiny losers.
But you have to explain why this is a big deal. In the end, though, all you have to do is make the case that the “conservatives” are CHEATING. Which they are.
Sure, in one district, but when you take those 15 points out of one district and move them to another, you haven’t changed anything in the aggregate. Chances are, you’re counting on needing those 15 points in the new district, but can afford to lose them in the other. You can’t use gerrymandering to dominate a legislature even though you lose in a landslide. You can gerrymander to the point where a close loss gives you a majority.
I agree that tax increases do not necessarily shrink the economy(although they can depending on what is being taxed and at what rate). But it is also true that you can’t tax yourself to prosperity. Money taken out of private hands to pay public employees is not growing anything, it’s just moving money around.
The point though is that you can’t increase taxes beyond a certain point, either because of political resistance or economic consequences. It’s stupid to max out your revenues, but many states have done that, and spent every dime of those revenues every year. Then when a recession hits, it’s disaster. Whereas in states that don’t max out their revenue, recessions are inconveniences. They have to figure out how to balance their budgets, but they have a lot of options, whereas in California they have few or none. Although Jerry Brown I’ve always liked because he’s a realistic Democrat who has always been willing to make tough decisions.
Gerrymandering is what the winning party does. It’s not cheating, although I do agree it’s unsavory. But blaming Republicans for a bipartisan, ancient practice is nonsense. The reforms you suggested should be done in all 50 states. But that still leaves the problem of more R districts than D districts. Democrats are concentrated in the cities, where in some areas it’s 90% Democrats, whereas the rural and suburban areas are less dominated by Republicans, maybe 60-40 GOP. That’s how you get narrow Democratic wins where they still lose Congress. And that’s how even a small loss by the Democrats(in 1994 they lost by only 7 points I believe) results in a huge landslide in Congress for Republicans. And in 1990, Republicans did not have an opportunity to gerrymander. They also didn’t have a big advantage in gerrymandering for the 2000 census, yet in 2010 won nearly 62 seats even though they won the popular vote by only 7 points again.
The GOP has a natural Congressional advantage. The fact that they don’t dominate Congress all the time is a tribute to Democrats already being more politically adept. I’m not sure they can increase that advantage further. They need to start actually persuading voters to support them, and they can’t just rely in the cities to fill up with minorities and young people. The cities going from 70% Democratic to 80% Democratic won’t win them any more Congressional seats, although it will make the popular vote totals look good.
The gerrymandering is what it is. To some extent it is a natural result of Democrats being concentrated in urban areas. Even with more “fair” redistricting, I suspect the Republicans would still control the House.
I am a committeeman with my town’s Democratic committee. Right now our town is fairly evenly divided between the parties with the Democrats holding more offices going into this fall’s elections.
But it is obvious to us the Republicans have more money to spend. That doesn’t mean we expect to lose. We have more volunteers and have done more canvassing by far. It should be very competitive.
But if a situation like North Carolina happened here, then we would be totally flooded with Republican money and would most likely lose. A billionaire’s money is hard to fight against.
More chimerical claims about California, huh? Look at this:
Of course everyone knows the primary factor that allowed California to be able to make those ‘tough decisions’ is voters getting rid of Republicans and their obstructionist ways by voting in Democratic super-majorities in the state House and Senate. The rest of the article goes on to lament how Brown is building this surplus ‘on the backs of the poor’. In a tax environment that looks like this.
Democrats ought to use this example to demonstrate that the GOP and their obstructionism is the source of a lot of problems. Dems can balance a historically wrecked budget at the state level. The same can happen at the federal level too. Programs for the poor are being left out though- dems need to promote the notion of reversing GOP tax cuts for the rich to remedy that, hopefully via jobs programs that result in less people being poor. They should stress the fundamental incompatibility of democracy with the oligarchy the GOP promotes and protects.
As compared to what, exactly? You don’t think the United States has “major controls on information”? Have you ever watched one of those Daily Show news montages that shows virtually every channel reporting the same stories, with virtually identical opinions expressed in virtually identical language? You think this is just a very large, ongoing coincidence? I don’t even need to mention Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, whose crimes consist of informing Americans about the activities of their own government.
:rolleyes: Censorship in general is no worse in Europe or Canada than in the U.S. In fact, Canada and most of Europe outrank the U.S. on the Press Freedom Index 2013 (We’re Number 32!).
A country where a great proportion of apparently reasonable people are oblivious to social-democrats’ technique of forsaking local control for greater control at the national level is indeed hopeless.
The relative merits of centralization vs. decentralization and the relative merits of free market capitalism v. social democracy are two completely different debates – related, but different.
They are now. They also all happen to be less socialist now. In some ways, their policies are to the right of ours. For example, is there any social democratic nation that is putting large swathes of its energy reserves off limits to exploitation?
