|
GlyphGryph posted:In the right wing viewpoint, it's not bullshit at all though. It's actively desirable, and its the alternative that is clearly bullshit. So the only spin you need is to convince people to approach the problem with a right wing viewpoint, which is something they put a lot of work into doing. By “actively desirable”, do you mean that Republican supporters are for it? If that’s what you mean, overall, they’re definitely against it: https://represent.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RepUS-Polling-Memo-080221.pdf Granted, as someone previously stated, this issue is probably extremely low on the importance list for almost everyone. So it probably wouldn’t actually sway anyone’s vote one way or the other in an R vs D election. However, if it’s a primary election with 2 candidates being similar outside of pushing for/against partisan gerrymandering, that could be another story 
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Republicans have convinced themselves that Gerrymandering is good and just because afterall look at all those maps that show how much red is on the map and isn't that clearly who should win? /s Republicans have internalized the idea that cities shouldn't be able to dictate to rural residents and that this should be codified at all costs; and is why we're starting to see an uptick of proposals to have the legislature decide who wins the state's election; because going by the demographics are destiny argument, and looking at Georgia and PA, a state can basically decide the election based on who wins in the cities without really caring about the rural vote (this isn't quite true especially in close elections but regardless). Hence why Texas going blue potentially is so desireable, because it shuts Republicans out of the Presidency until the next big realignment. Generally the "It's a Republic not a Democracy" true believers are going to be the ones who won't be swayed by logical argument because they've fully internalized all of the above; but there's presumably a lot of more 'soft' Republicans you could convince to end gerrymandering or support multi-member districts and a transferable vote on the basis of appealing to the idea that, hey, look at ALL of those Republicans in blue states without any representation at all and isn't that sad? The more dems brazenly engage in skullduggery the harder it is to persuade low information swing voters into supporting those policies in states that need it. Simply drawing fair districts in a few red states where its possible in the near term is more than enough to likely flip the house without needing Dems to undo legitimately good policy in blue states. IIRC hasn't there been a lot of good news regarding republican gerrymandering recently in a bunch of states that probably helps Dems re-win the House? Dems don't need as large a house majority as GOP does to get policy passed, it isn't the senate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
The root issue with gerrymandering is that Republicans think it's great because it means they win, while Democrats think it's morally wrong in and of itself, so they don't do it. But fixing the issue would, as above, require Democrats actively pursuing a strategy they view as morally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The root issue with gerrymandering is that Republicans think it's great because it means they win, while Democrats think it's morally wrong in and of itself, so they don't do it. But fixing the issue would, as above, require Democrats actively pursuing a strategy they view as morally wrong. It’s a real “do you wanna win or do you wanna praise the process” moment and I have no faith that we’ve got a party ideologically coherent enough in Dems to value winning above process. Sad state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s a real “do you wanna win or do you wanna praise the process” moment and I have no faith that we’ve got a party ideologically coherent enough in Dems to value winning above process. Sad state of affairs. The thing is, the mathematical tools for drawing fair districts have been developed. The only real path to reform is probably hold presidency > appoint a more liberal supreme court > outlaw gerrymandering through the courts > once fair districts are established, reinforce them with statutory law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Granted, this is all gut feeling on my part, but I feel like your average Republican voter, if asked, would tell you that gerrymandering is bad—and I don’t think they’d even necessarily be lying about that. It’s a means, not an end. Which is also what makes it so easy to justify. It’s also a lot easier to argue against when you aren’t favored by it. Let’s be honest with ourselves—if Congress had a gerrymandered Dem advantage, we wouldn’t be making as much of an issue about it as we do, because there would be so many more important issues to settle, and look at the state of the GOP, do you *really* want to give them more power? It’s not an easy issue to make your primary concern, because it’s about principled commitment to fair democracy over a lot of other more tangible things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:IIRC all congressional districts need to be reasonably and practically as close to equally sized in population. So you can't just shave off say, a +5 from one district and hand it to another. A random plot of land in a +50 D district is not necessarily evenly distributed in population preferences; every district has parts which are more red or blue or purple then other parts; depending on the urban/suburban/rural divide and general demographics. It’s really not that hard if you are willing to shamelessly gerrymander. There are algorithms that can optimize a gerrymander based on historical voting patterns. It would look ridiculous with a bunch of long thin districts radiating out of Los Angeles and the Bay, but it would work. As Misunderstood said, the trick is not to get too greedy. You could probably create a theoretical 52-0 map for dems in CA but it would be extremely vulnerable. If instead you went for a 50-2 or 49-3 map where you created a couple of 90% R districts it would be a lot more safe. It’s also important to remember that CA is not starting from a roughly 50/50 position like some of these Republican states - the fair map is already producing a 40-12 outcome. You only need to dilute ~10 R districts and you can draw from 40 Dem ones. It wouldn’t be some huge gamble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Everybody talking about Illinois without posting the map. This is after IL lost a seat from the 2020 census. The Chicago dot kind of belies that the city is fairly large in terms of area - the city is split up to maximize the voting potential of the population as you may expect. And the Chicago metro population is about 2/3rds of Illinois' population (note it's metro, not city limits - city is about 2.6m) so... you can do that. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Kalit posted:By “actively desirable”, do you mean that Republican supporters are for it? If that’s what you mean, overall, they’re definitely against it: https://represent.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RepUS-Polling-Memo-080221.pdf It's why I specifically said approach it from a right-wing perspective. If you frame it from a non-right wing perspective of course they'll mostly oppose it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's why I specifically said approach it from a right-wing perspective. If you frame it from a non-right wing perspective of course they'll mostly oppose it. At least on the right, even if people think gerrymandering is bad in theory, if you tell them it will lead to [more gun rights/forced births/tax cuts] then they'll forget about that "principle" pretty fast and go for the W. Right wing media used to tell people, "this is why you're against this." Now they just have to say, "you're against this."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Seph posted:It’s really not that hard if you are willing to shamelessly gerrymander. There are algorithms that can optimize a gerrymander based on historical voting patterns. It would look ridiculous with a bunch of long thin districts radiating out of Los Angeles and the Bay, but it would work. Well no, it is easier said than done, you're kinda just repeating that it would be easy to do. I've already mentioned in my post that those algorithms exist yes, but it doesn't actually mean that such a map can actually exist with California's circumstances; and doesn't mean it wouldn't be vulnerable to a collapse in the current dem coalition (especially as a result of blow back to shamelessly changing the rules); you mention historical voting patterns but there's been big changes to the Dem coalition over the past 12-24 years and they keep likely to be changing. It's maybe possible that you could draw such a map, but it isn't guaranteed to be wise long term; and almost certainly would likely face blowback from California voters. Which is a very important point that I don't think I've seen remarked on; we know this commission wasn't created by Dems right? It was put on the ballot and approved by voters and further approved/expanded by voters for the US House districts; the later change had 60% of the vote in favor of by the California electorate. Establishment Dems actually opposed this change, and according to wikipedia so did the California Democratic Party; the voters pushed through this change in spite of it. The commission had a lot of support from local political organizations and groups; this isn't something California Dems can just change on a whim; and would face a lot of opposition from the interest groups that actively supported it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Well no, it is easier said than done, you're kinda just repeating that it would be easy to do. I've already mentioned in my post that those algorithms exist yes, but it doesn't actually mean that such a map can actually exist with California's circumstances; and doesn't mean it wouldn't be vulnerable to a collapse in the current dem coalition (especially as a result of blow back to shamelessly changing the rules); you mention historical voting patterns but there's been big changes to the Dem coalition over the past 12-24 years and they keep likely to be changing. It's maybe possible that you could draw such a map, but it isn't guaranteed to be wise long term; and almost certainly would likely face blowback from California voters. You’re just vaguely saying “it might be hard” without refuting any of my points. California has such a structural advantage towards the dems with multiple large urban areas that are strongly dem, vast suburban areas that are closer to 50/50, and a relatively small rural population that is largely located in a few pockets of the state. Take a look at this analysis from 2018 that shows a hypothetical California gerrymander. This gives 10 extra safe seats to the dems and has *zero* competitive districts. Put another way, that is about as conservative of a gerrymander as you could make and it still netted 10 safe dem seats. If you wanted to take a bit more of a risk you could probably create a few more competitive districts with a slight dem skew to get even more seats. Obviously that map is based on 2018 data, but a more up to date version would look largely the same. The demographics of the state have not changed materially in that time such that a gerrymander would be useless. If anything, the state has gotten less conservative in the past few years, making a gerrymander even easier. Seph fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
What exactly would a 10 to 1 advantage accomplish that a 4 to 1 advantage can't anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
Well, 6 additional ones for every 1 of their ones, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:What exactly would a 10 to 1 advantage accomplish that a 4 to 1 advantage can't anyway? In the current house it would flip control back to the Dems. On average, it would offset about half of the structural advantage republicans have in gerrymandered states (the net impact I’ve read is 19 seats towards Republicans - there are 39 gerrymandered towards Rs and 20 gerrymandered towards Ds). That is huge. A single state government could unilaterally cut Republican structural advantage in half if it wanted to. It’s honestly a travesty that they don’t.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The fixed borders for the Senate is way more of a problem than the House borders Sure but something can actually be done about the latter. It would take something on the order of a constitutional amendment to un-gently caress the Senate, and that will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Seph posted:In the current house it would flip control back to the Dems. On average, it would offset about half of the structural advantage republicans have in gerrymandered states (the net impact I’ve read is 19 seats towards Republicans - there are 39 gerrymandered towards Rs and 20 gerrymandered towards Ds). The state government can't, California's redistricting is via constitutional amendment. They would need the voters to pass a new ballot measure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Maybe if republicans really are fascists threatening US "democracy" then Dems should take every advantage possible to snuff out their lovely regressive party that would have zero power in a functioning society not beholden to this two party system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's why I specifically said approach it from a right-wing perspective. If you frame it from a non-right wing perspective of course they'll mostly oppose it. I feel like this is a rather shoddy reason to reject evidence contradicting your position, especially considering that you haven't offered any evidence for your own view. I think having hard facts and data we can point to is real good for discussions like this, so that they don't get into people throwing unsubstantiated opinions at each other. At least if people go find some backing for their views, then we can examine how strong that backing is. Seph posted:You’re just vaguely saying “it might be hard” without refuting any of my points. California has such a structural advantage towards the dems with multiple large urban areas that are strongly dem, vast suburban areas that are closer to 50/50, and a relatively small rural population that is largely located in a few pockets of the state. I feel like you're the one not addressing Raenir's points. The problem is not that "it might be hard". The problem is that it's unconstitutional. And that control over redistricting has been taken away from the CA legislature. And that this constitutional amendment was passed by Democratic voters against the will of the CA Dem party, which opposed it. And that said voters would be very unhappy with the CA Dems trying to get rid of the amendment, and even more unhappy with the CA Dems ignoring it and engaging in blatantly unconstitutional interference in redistricting. It doesn't really matter how gerrymanderable the map theoretically be if the map is under the control of an independent redistricting commission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Part of why this nonsense propagates is because there are a lot of weird benefit cliffs that make it so that certain marginal dollars are actually net negative for personal finances, even if the tax bracket logic is universally wrong This is a bit like saying “in fairness to flat earthers the earth is an oblate spheroid, not a true sphere”. The people in question think that the tax rate on every dollar of their income goes up if they earn more, and they think that even though it would be an obviously stupid tax system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1740886730029334738?s=20 Biden really wants to get weapons to Israel. I wonder how this meshes with the deadline he gave them a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Seph posted:In the current house it would flip control back to the Dems. On average, it would offset about half of the structural advantage republicans have in gerrymandered states (the net impact I’ve read is 19 seats towards Republicans - there are 39 gerrymandered towards Rs and 20 gerrymandered towards Ds). Especially when you look at what Texas does with its democratic voter vs. republican voter split
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Those CA propositions were passed in 2008 and 2010. It would be interesting to see how repealing them would go in TYOOL 2024. In particular, Prop 20 extended the changes from the CA House to the US House, which is where there's a strong argument that pushing through a favorable gerrymander would benefit CA voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
The original discussion was about how a California gerrymander might not be effective and/or might backfire in a wave election. I was specifically addressing that, not the constitutionality or political ability to implement a gerrymander. On that point, if you’re referencing the results of Proposition 11 as some sort of impossible barrier to overcome, you should dig a bit deeper on that election and how California politics has changed since 2008. 1) the proposition barely passed with 51-49 in favor 2) the state was much more conservative in 2008 than it is today. It voted for Obama 61-37 then, and Biden 63-34, despite Biden being a much less popular candidate 3) much less decorum poisoning. Back in 2008, Republicans still had plausible deniability that they were interested in good faith governing. The idea of playing fair was much more popular at the time. All of that to say that a ballot measure could absolutely be put through in this current environment to undo Proposition 11. Edit: I forgot that it was two sequential ballot measures, and Proposition 20 was the one that gave power to the board for federal elections. That one passed with a bit more support, but I stand by points #2 and #3 which would still apply to Prop 20 (especially #3). Seph fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Do you take issue with his stance? It’s inherently xenophobic and ageist to limit the presidency to natural-born citizens aged 35 years or older. Personally I am against xenophobia and ageism, but I am willing to hear an argument to the contrary. "President Elon Musk."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:"President Elon Musk." We can carve out a specific Anish Kapoor prohibition for him, I think we can all agree
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this is a rather shoddy reason to reject evidence contradicting your position, especially considering that you haven't offered any evidence for your own view. I think having hard facts and data we can point to is real good for discussions like this, so that they don't get into people throwing unsubstantiated opinions at each other. At least if people go find some backing for their views, then we can examine how strong that backing is. I think you may have confused my argument if you think that's evidence to reject my position. The original point I was refuting was "there's not really any right-wing spin you can give to the idea that works as a defense of it", and my refutation wasn't that there was widespread Republican support of them, just that there is, in fact, a right wing spin you can give to the idea that works as a defense of it - that it helps them win, and that things that help them win are good, and with a maybe addendum if necessary that its fair because its within the rules. There's also the spin where it's a tool to ensure "fair representation" by rural Republicans, and probably a couple others. Their numbers indicate that even absent any real attempt to deliver such a message, there still exist a whole bunch of Republicans that actively support gerrymanders regardless (50% more than Democrats supporting it), which doesn't seem like the contradiction you want it to be, and that's when framed in a general way instead of a specific way (and we can see with congressional approval how wildly different those numbers are going to be).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
Seph posted:You’re just vaguely saying “it might be hard” without refuting any of my points. California has such a structural advantage towards the dems with multiple large urban areas that are strongly dem, vast suburban areas that are closer to 50/50, and a relatively small rural population that is largely located in a few pockets of the state. First, you're the one who kept saying "It would be easy", without addressing the issues, its good you provided an example of what a hypothetical map would look like, I won't dispute now that this map is theoretically possible (at least with 2018), but I still contend that Californians might very well punish Democrats in such a hypothetical, and you can't rely on Californian structural Dem advantages if Dems were to hypothetically rob the electorate of their rights. But we still have the next hurdle as Maine Paineframe and others have seconded: Seph posted:The original discussion was about how a California gerrymander might not be effective and/or might backfire in a wave election. I was specifically addressing that, not the constitutionality or political ability to implement a gerrymander. You specifically wrote: quote:That is huge. A single state government could unilaterally cut Republican structural advantage in half if it wanted to. It’s honestly a travesty that they don’t. As though the fault was Cali Dems not pressing the Obvious I-Win button; the State government literally cannot change the rules, and there's no inclination California voters want to change the rules again just to punish Republicans in other parts of the country. I don't think it was an issue of voters being more conservative wanting to ungerrymander the state, but voters in general, above politics, not liking how undemocratic gerrymandering was. It isn't very reasonable to suppose that a more progressive populace would be somehow more in favour of blatant skullduggery. In short, basically Californian Dems cannot undo the independent commission as it would be unconstitutional. And even if they could, it would still be a terrible idea as it goes against the will of the populace (the thing we should care about). And it is very unlikely that the will of the populace would have changed to the point that a majority would support undoing it specifically to reward Dems with more seats when the reason why Californians even passed this in the first place was because they were annoyed with State Dems; why would they go back to that? GlyphGryph posted:It's why I specifically said approach it from a right-wing perspective. If you frame it from a non-right wing perspective of course they'll mostly oppose it. Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this is a rather shoddy reason to reject evidence contradicting your position, especially considering that you haven't offered any evidence for your own view. I think having hard facts and data we can point to is real good for discussions like this, so that they don't get into people throwing unsubstantiated opinions at each other. At least if people go find some backing for their views, then we can examine how strong that backing is. I think to be fair I think Glyph isn't incorrect that there are probably ways to be persuasive with some conservatives person-to-person; but you need to strategically appeal to what they care about; it might not succeed or get far past whatever cognitive dissonance the person has going on; but I've had at least some personal albeit anecdotal success in getting conservatives to agree that gerrymandering is bad, but by pointing out how Republicans lose out in Blue states. The same argument also has some success when talking about the House of Reps and the EC college. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Why is it when blue states like MD and NY put in Dem favored gerrymanders they get pushback from courts where this does not seem to happen in red or swing states, until just very recently?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Why is it when blue states like MD and NY put in Dem favored gerrymanders they get pushback from courts where this does not seem to happen in red or swing states, until just very recently? Part is that places with further left governments also tend to have further left judges as a consequence. Another part is that they tend to have stronger state laws against gerrymandering, which make it harder to legally justify the gerrymander.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Part is that places with further left governments also tend to have further left judges as a consequence. Another part is that they tend to have stronger state laws against gerrymandering, which make it harder to legally justify the gerrymander. They're not necessarily more "left", just far less likely to be partisan hacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Abbott and his cronies still being giant assholes.quote:“He (Abbott) is now sending buses outside of the City of Chicago, in some instances, a hundred miles away where people are being dropped off … they’re being told they are in the City of Chicago, literally dropped off in the middle of nowhere,” Johnson said on “CNN This Morning” Friday. “I find that to be inhumane and unconscionable.” When will the FBI or CBP or someone start charging this guy for human trafficking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
The Feds need to get an injunction against this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Abbott and his cronies still being giant assholes. Can’t people easily die from exposure from stunts like this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Can’t people easily die from exposure from stunts like this? Canadian police used to be big fans of it. (still are?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Can’t people easily die from exposure from stunts like this? Yes. It's been fairly warm in northern Illinois for the time of year, but it can change very quickly. January and February are when it's also most likely to be brutally cold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Can’t people easily die from exposure from stunts like this? Yes. The cruelty is the point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Same as the videos that came out a few years back of facsist fuckheads going around destroying bottles of water left in the desert for migrants crossing to not die of dehydration. If a bunch of Guatemalans end up freezing to death or something because of this, they may not say so in public, but the people responsible would absolutely think "Good. We should do it more."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
Considering how Dem polling on immigration has shifted over the past year, it looks like the scheme is working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Kalli posted:Considering how Dem polling on immigration has shifted over the past year, it looks like the scheme is working. Can you please link the polls you're referring to when making a claim about them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 03:59
|
|