|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The house is hosed because gerrymandering AND because Democrats are all in cities. We overelect people like crazy. Granted, isn't really just gerrymandering when urban areas should be split up more equitably into districts? There isn't a reason that a urban area needs to be in as small a number of districts as possible. Also yeah turnout was around 35.5-35.6%, it was the lowest turnout since the Second World War....and that was only because a significant portion of the country was fighting abroad. It might have been the lowest peace-time (ish) turnout far longer than that, I am trying to find non-presidential turnout data before the 1930s. Oddly enough Oregon had a 52% turnout rate, and the result was generally favorable for the Democrats. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 13:14 on Nov 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death Yeah, the demographics are still looming, basically turnout was so suppressed that demographics didn't change much especially in House races where Democrats will need a gigantic advantage to get the same number of seats. Basically, the future is going to look like a Republican House probably until the end of time with very likely a Democratic President. The electoral system in the US is kind of broken at this point. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 14:18 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Let's not forget a really good republican or democratic candidate could come out like Barack Obama, and throw a wrench in things again. It's just there is nobody on the horizon. We met Barack Obama back during Hurricane Katrina which was years before the election. Well a wrench into the Presidential race maybe, it is still going to heavily favor Democrats while there is really no way for the Democrats to regain the House, and the Senate will just flip flop for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:That is pretty much just gerrymandering in the opposite way though, isn't it? The problem is that Democrats are very concentrated in cities, while Republicans are much more spread out. So unless you are districting purposefully to spread out the dems it is going to result in fewer Democratic candidates being elected by large margins while more Republicans are elected by lower margins. Should the idea be more to create more competitive districts for both parties rather than accept "natural districts"? State borders are inflexible, but there isn't a reason for district to be. It would help Democrats more theoretically but it would also open up the potential for Republicans to take once "safe" Democratic districts. Either way it makes even less sense when the very nature of a responsible representatives breaks down because of it, not just because of party balance but that those districts will be so ultra-safe that they don't really need to be as responsive. It is actually fairly hard to look at the way the US does things and come up with much of a fair reason to keep it beyond it won't be allowed to change.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You've got two opposite inclinations here. The first is that the point of a district is that it has its own unique interests and needs someone to represent those particular interests. That tugs in favor of 'natural' districts: you'd want to put like people together in a district so that their representative represents those interests. The second is democracy - there's a problem when the elected representatives do not represent the electorate, and you've got a, say, 50-50 state that sends 75% of one side to Congress. This leans in favor of making each district competitive so that you avoid wasted votes as much as possible. Having a "natural district" breaks down though when it doesn't respond to demographic changes, that district doesn't represent the population when it was created more way or another. Ultimately while it would be nice to have a natural district retain a "unique character" ultimately it is a luxury when there are such other vast issues. quote:Going to pure competitive districts solves the second problem, but not all that well. At that point you're better off just doing a pure proportional representation system. It would be better, but it would require massive constitutional changes. I actually think our system is drastically inferior compared to a proper PR system. quote:Given our political limitations independent redistricting with the mandate to create competitive districts is the way to go. You have to be aware though that what you are doing is basically gerrymandering - you're explicitly drawing the map to favor specific types of elections instead of creating natural districts. That's going to lead to the sort of absurd districts you see bandied about as examples of extreme gerrymandering and you've got to be aware of that and able to defend it. The point is that a natural district is no longer competitive and if anything doesn't fit its purpose any longer, it is redrawing lines but not necessarily to strictly benefit one party. Oregon for example if anything keeping the same districts would benefit the Democrats, right now the "natural" district of Eastern Oregon so that it is the only one the GOP can consistently win. Also, hopefully you wouldn't have to create a crazy snake district to make them more competitive (if anything it is more likely those specific types of districts would disappear). If your system is so rigid it can't reflect demographic changes into competitive districts, it simply isn't working. The US system was always a more restrained form of a representative republic to begin with, it has just reached the point it is more and more unclear whether that system is actually responding to the needs the population any longer. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:18 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:We also have minority/majority districts right now that exist pretty much solely because of gerrymandering. Geographically based representative districts actually gets really complicated in a hurry. Like evilweasel said, it's a lot easier to have a purely proportional representation system. Good luck with that here though. Ultimately though it becomes the question of "waiting for a PR" system or pushing more complex changes with the system we are obviously going to be stuck with until we die.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution. It really would have to happen on a Federal level though which would necessitate a constitutional change. That would be fine and everything, but I wouldn't hold my breath. quote:I suspect that would prove incredibly unpopular, however. People don't want a passel of representatives representing their state at large. They want a specific name that is designated as their representative that they can call when they need a pothole fixed. Other countries do it all the time, it does have its issues obviously but the current system is just something else. gently caress You And Diebold posted:We can definitely still fight for more fair districts, I was pointing out that the Democrats house woes are more than just gerrymandering by the Republicans in 2010. Not to single you out specifically, I just hear that reasoning lots of places, coworkers/facebook/other forums etc. If we focus on that aspect of losing the house we ignore the larger (more complicated) problem. It is fairer to say that the issue is that more and more districts are becoming non-competitive for a variety of reasons. That said, I think there is counter-attitude that urban districts becoming non-competitive isn't a real big issue even though it is not from gerrymandering. It should be "it isn't gerrymandering, but something that shouldn't happen regardless." Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:42 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No it wouldn't (besides that irritating multi-member district law). Why do you think it would have to happen on a federal level? The reasoning being to eliminate the chance of strategic decisions by states, rather it is what I think needs to happen if you want to make that change. I would say the same thing about restricting but I think someone get on my case about its practicality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Ultimately which is why the Democrats will have an advantage in holding in presidency but the GOP will have an iron hold on the House.
Ardennes has issued a correction as of 21:40 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They don't need to have a disadvantage in the House - if they redistricted in 2020 they could easily fix that. But until then, yes. That is going to require both major wins of state level legislatures and governor seats outside of traditional D strongholds and the courage to actually follow through. I am not going to hold my breath. It is of course technically possible, but just unlikely, and I think it is going to lead to some interesting questions in the future. (Btw, I think thats what should happen, I am just completely skeptical of it happening).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Another issue is that traditional D strongholds cannot be taken for granted with the movement of white suburbanites to cities. There hasn't been much movement as far as the cities themselves, look at DC for example which is gotten more White recently and it still votes as Democratic as before. It may change as Gen Y ages, but the Boomers kept their voting habits as they aged for the most part and Gen Y isn't going to be as wealthy as their parents especially after paying all that rent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:And we held onto the governor and Franken's seat by a ton, and even a few of the House seats that we were projected to lose. We did the best of any state except Oregon. Part of that probably had to do with weed honestly enough, 2018 is probably not going to be as kind. Oregon Democrats have pretty much everything they need, and a lot of major social issues are off the table. We will see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually you need it in 2020, the redistricting happens between 2020 and 2022. Admittedly you are probably going to need to well in both elections (or less poorly in 2018 than 2014), Governors and most senate senators have 4 year terms.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Beyond Iraq, I don't know what would be that different (I guess you could say Syria was influenced by Iraq, but it very well most likely would have happened). Clinton's attitudes toward financial regulation was pretty much the same as the GOP anyway. Yeah and we would have ended up with Gay marriage and some version of the ACA anyway. We would still also be fighting brush fires in the Middle East, and relations with Russia would have still been frigid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:2008 might not have happen. Would Clinton in his third or fourth term allowed all the crazy poo poo bush did that lead to the crash? You really should read up more about financial regulation under Clinton, especially the CFMA and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Would Clinton have been completely asleep at the wheel though as the housing bubble built up, with no effort to do anything? Would he have let AT&T reform (and other mergers)? Clinton at least had some semblance of anti-trust going. There's also FCC decisions. I doubt Clinton would have done much to stop them especially as he got use to being in office, and Clinton regulation of the FCC wasn't that different. You know Clinton got a balanced budget from constrained spending right? We would have a lower debt level...and thats about it. If anything I wouldn't have been surprised if Clinton ultimately would have cut more than Bush did over the years. (The US debt level even right now isn't an issue) The Supreme Court is pretty much the last defense of any Democratic president, yeah he would have but beyond Iraq that might have been the most major difference.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Even if 9/11 had occurred under a Democrat, there would have been no Iraq War and no Bush tax cuts, so by the time the housing and financial bubbles popped, there wouldn't have been a deficit and the national debt would have been much lower. The Recession would have been much easier to fix with a budget surplus going into it. In any real sense budget deficit wasn't the primary factor holding back stimulus though and who knows what the optics would have looked like after a 16 year Clinton presidency that ended into a second recession.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Pervis posted:I know why he had the balanced budget, but there's something to be said about not dumping 500B/year in to interest payments in the middle of a near-depression while having the "responsible party" bitch about the debt, and have that actually have traction. I don't particularly care about the debt itself, but it's ridiculous that as a country we were fine with spending like drunken sailors during relatively OK years and suddenly now have to balance the budget because of some debt figure. The debt itself is a lever to kill off actual useful policy like food stamps, unemployment, R&D, etc, to a degree that seems appalling. That is the issue though, I never bought that Clinton was constrained by the GOP, rather he was doing what he wanted for the most part. Remember back at the 2012 when Clinton gave that speech at the convention about how much he was still proud about gutting welfare? Even if the GOP were to blame, I doubt they would change their mind with a stable budget. Our budget right now is rapidly stabilizing and the rhetoric really hasn't fundamentally shifted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:13
|
|