MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: TSmith34, Inc. on November 02, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
-
Every age group has non-voters, but these millennials really sound embarrassing.
12 Young People on Why They Probably Won’t Vote
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/12-young-people-on-why-they-probably-wont-vote.html
(http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/12-young-people-on-why-they-probably-wont-vote.html)
"putting all that information in just an Instagram Story, in a Snapchat filter or whatever — bulleted-out, easy-to-read, digestible content — would encourage me to vote."
-
If you can't figure out what "post marked" means, it is probably best you are not voting.
-
Actually a mix of Millennials and Gen Z, but your point isn't wrong.
One of the things I'm concerned about with regard to politicals is the "sportification"....meaning it feels like now more than ever elections are viewed through the context of "my side won more elections on election day so I'm happy" with a complete lack of connection to the impact on local, state, and federal policy the results of those elections have.
Maybe another way to put it is that if feels like the two party system has never felt more ingrained in society, especially in the younger generations and I think that is disastrous long term for this country
*For the record this is coming from someone that identifies as a Modern Whig, so what do I know.
-
Actually a mix of Millennials and Gen Z, but your point isn't wrong.
One of the things I'm concerned about with regard to politicals is the "sportification"....meaning it feels like now more than ever elections are viewed through the context of "my side won more elections on election day so I'm happy" with a complete lack of connection to the impact on local, state, and federal policy the results of those elections have.
Maybe another way to put it is that if feels like the two party system has never felt more ingrained in society, especially in the younger generations and I think that is disastrous long term for this country
*For the record this is coming from someone that identifies as a Modern Whig, so what do I know.
Its REALLY easy to get on social media and find yourself pushed away from candidates just on blithering idiots. Ive had candidates where I looked them up later and was like "oh, I actually kind of like what they have to say" but had sort of put them out of my mind cause I'd come across stuff on Twitter or the like where it was just too much. Same way you have no real attachment or connection to a sports team, but grow to dislike them because their fans are obnoxious. Add to that where sometimes, if you read sentiment, it feels like choices are "care about other people" or "not feel guilty about wanting to make and keep as much money as personally possible", with no intersect. Its soo polarizing.
That being said, I'm a millennial and most of those responses made my brain ache.
-
*For the record this is coming from someone that identifies as a Modern Whig, so what do I know.
Still hung up on Andrew Jackson's veto of the National Bank?
...but seriously...what's a Modern Whig?
-
Still hung up on Andrew Jackson's veto of the National Bank?
...but seriously...what's a Modern Whig?
http://action.modernwhig.org/platform (http://action.modernwhig.org/platform)
For me the most telling description of what makes a Modern Whig: We often say we favor methodology over ideology, meaning we look at issues through the prism of intelligent analysis and common sense rather than a rigid, predetermined outlook. While we embrace a wide range of viewpoints, we all share the same basic framework for analyzing any particular economic, political or strategic issue. Does it meet the three guides to success: Is it principled, does it achieve what is intended, and is it pragmatic?
-
One of the things I'm concerned about with regard to politicals is the "sportification"....meaning it feels like now more than ever elections are viewed through the context of "my side won more elections on election day so I'm happy" with a complete lack of connection to the impact on local, state, and federal policy the results of those elections have.
Maybe another way to put it is that if feels like the two party system has never felt more ingrained in society, especially in the younger generations and I think that is disastrous long term for this country
Exactly. Is it any wonder why - at this stage in the campaign cycle - that candidates turn their primary focus and talking points to the polls, with all of them saying "the polls look good for me" regardless of what the polls actually say?
Moreover, how sustainable is a society when half of the population is being conditioned to despise the other half?
*For the record this is coming from someone that identifies as a Modern Whig, so what do I know.
The joy is so overwhelming, I might have to go cry now.
-
Every age group has non-voters, but these millennials really sound embarrassing.
12 Young People on Why They Probably Won’t Vote
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/12-young-people-on-why-they-probably-wont-vote.html
(http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/12-young-people-on-why-they-probably-wont-vote.html)
"putting all that information in just an Instagram Story, in a Snapchat filter or whatever — bulleted-out, easy-to-read, digestible content — would encourage me to vote."
actually, many make sense. The Boomers and generations who came before them have destroyed the system, creating the disillusionment. Citizens United only made it worse. Money, not voices, is what drives our political system today.
Of course, we live in a society now what all we have to do is say "Millenial" and we immediately make up our mind that whatever they are going to say is going to be ridiculous and laughable. As I told my assistant, a Millenial, "your generation has become everybody else's bitches."
-
actually, many make sense. The Boomers and generations who came before them have destroyed the system, creating the disillusionment. Citizens United only made it worse. Money, not voices, is what drives our political system today.
Vehemently disagree, Citizens United while extremely frustrating is largely an excuse for people to not engage in the process "why should I vote/volunteer/make a difference, the corporate money is just gonna box me out." Further it is symptomatic of(not the cause of) the nationalization of our politics, which I think is calamitous to our political discourse.
Prime example, in state senate and representative races in southeastern Wisconsin the far and away #1 issue being thrown at each candidate is around pre-existing medical conditions. Practically speaking (regardless of position) what impact can a state rep have on pre-existing coverage? Sure, it's worth to have a position on, but why is it the #1 issue to the exclusion of almost everything at that level of political office?
Lastly, every younger generation has been "disillusioned" by the older generation....this isn't some strange new phenomenon that impacts only millennials.
-
http://action.modernwhig.org/platform (http://action.modernwhig.org/platform)
For me the most telling description of what makes a Modern Whig: We often say we favor methodology over ideology, meaning we look at issues through the prism of intelligent analysis and common sense rather than a rigid, predetermined outlook. While we embrace a wide range of viewpoints, we all share the same basic framework for analyzing any particular economic, political or strategic issue. Does it meet the three guides to success: Is it principled, does it achieve what is intended, and is it pragmatic?
You've done it well.
I was never able to pigeon-hole you to one side or the other. Even with other guys who put out well thought out responses - TAMU, for example - it could be deduced what side of the spectrum they were on.
I always thought it was just the engineering mindset, but you have finally given the real explanation. A much better look than to just be considered middle-of-the-road, which implies to most people a blandness or a lack of deep beliefs.
-
You've done it well.
I was never able to pigeon-hole you to one side or the other. Even with other guys who put out well thought out responses - TAMU, for example - it could be deduced what side of the spectrum they were on.
I always thought it was just the engineering mindset, but you have finally given the real explanation. A much better look than to just be considered middle-of-the-road, which implies to most people a blandness or a lack of deep beliefs.
Eng is a deep thinker. Never mind that he has us 19-1 out of the gate! :o
-
Vehemently disagree, Citizens United while extremely frustrating is largely an excuse for people to not engage in the process "why should I vote/volunteer/make a difference, the corporate money is just gonna box me out." Further it is symptomatic of(not the cause of) the nationalization of our politics, which I think is calamitous to our political discourse.
Prime example, in state senate and representative races in southeastern Wisconsin the far and away #1 issue being thrown at each candidate is around pre-existing medical conditions. Practically speaking (regardless of position) what impact can a state rep have on pre-existing coverage? Sure, it's worth to have a position on, but why is it the #1 issue to the exclusion of almost everything at that level of political office?
Lastly, every younger generation has been "disillusioned" by the older generation....this isn't some strange new phenomenon that impacts only millennials.
Agree very strongly on your first and third points.
On the second one, there are still impacts that can be made at the state level. You are right, it is more of a national issue, but it is reflective of how strongly people feel that they want it addressed at the state level if the at the national level it has been moving away from the direction they desire.
-
You've done it well.
I was never able to pigeon-hole you to one side or the other. Even with other guys who put out well thought out responses - TAMU, for example - it could be deduced what side of the spectrum they were on.
I always thought it was just the engineering mindset, but you have finally given the real explanation. A much better look than to just be considered middle-of-the-road, which implies to most people a blandness or a lack of deep beliefs.
Well thank you, though I have to say part of it is that I was raised to play devils advocate as a way to challenge my own or others rigid thinking.
-
http://action.modernwhig.org/platform (http://action.modernwhig.org/platform)
For me the most telling description of what makes a Modern Whig: We often say we favor methodology over ideology, meaning we look at issues through the prism of intelligent analysis and common sense rather than a rigid, predetermined outlook. While we embrace a wide range of viewpoints, we all share the same basic framework for analyzing any particular economic, political or strategic issue. Does it meet the three guides to success: Is it principled, does it achieve what is intended, and is it pragmatic?
I read the whole platform. Can’t say there’s anything in there I disagree with. I certainly wish we had more pragmatism and less competition.
Thanks for the info!
-
If "Did Not Vote" was a candidate.
-
If "Did Not Vote" was a candidate.
Ha! That is pretty funny. Amazing.
-
If "Did Not Vote" was a candidate.
Wonder where "none of the above" fits on that map, aina.
-
Ha! That is pretty funny. Amazing.
Voter suppression is not funny.
-
Actually a mix of Millennials and Gen Z, but your point isn't wrong.
One of the things I'm concerned about with regard to politicals is the "sportification"....meaning it feels like now more than ever elections are viewed through the context of "my side won more elections on election day so I'm happy" with a complete lack of connection to the impact on local, state, and federal policy the results of those elections have.
Maybe another way to put it is that if feels like the two party system has never felt more ingrained in society, especially in the younger generations and I think that is disastrous long term for this country
*For the record this is coming from someone that identifies as a Modern Whig, so what do I know.
+1 Exactly. Winning is more important that civility and making things work.
-
For all the grief we give Millennials and Generation Z around here, let's keep in mind that they didn't choose to raise themselves on cable television, the internet, mobile devices and social media.
Good or bad - and we seem focused almost exclusively on the bad around here - they are who they are largely because of the way their parents (mostly GenXers, with some younger Boomers sprinkled in) chose to stick them in front of televisions, computers and iPhones so they could go about their busy, important lives. Which, to be fair to the parents, is often necessitated by the need - or perceived need - for two-income households these days.
-
For all the grief we give Millennials and Generation Z around here, let's keep in mind that they didn't choose to raise themselves on cable television, the internet, mobile devices and social media.
Good or bad - and we seem focused almost exclusively on the bad around here - they are who they are largely because of the way their parents (mostly GenXers, with some younger Boomers sprinkled in) chose to stick them in front of televisions, computers and iPhones so they could go about their busy, important lives. Which, to be fair to the parents, is often necessitated by the need - or perceived need - for two-income households these days.
I agree with this with a minor point. Millennials I would think are tied closer to boomer parents with some early x’ers sprinkled in.
-
For all the grief we give Millennials and Generation Z around here, let's keep in mind that they didn't choose to raise themselves on cable television, the internet, mobile devices and social media.
Good or bad - and we seem focused almost exclusively on the bad around here - they are who they are largely because of the way their parents (mostly GenXers, with some younger Boomers sprinkled in) chose to stick them in front of televisions, computers and iPhones so they could go about their busy, important lives. Which, to be fair to the parents, is often necessitated by the need - or perceived need - for two-income households these days.
There is some overlap, but Millennials are mostly the children of Boomers, and Gen Z are mostly the children of Xers
-
For all the grief we give Millennials and Generation Z around here, let's keep in mind that they didn't choose to raise themselves on cable television, the internet, mobile devices and social media.
Good or bad - and we seem focused almost exclusively on the bad around here - they are who they are largely because of the way their parents (mostly GenXers, with some younger Boomers sprinkled in) chose to stick them in front of televisions, computers and iPhones so they could go about their busy, important lives. Which, to be fair to the parents, is often necessitated by the need - or perceived need - for two-income households these days.
What’s with the swipe at dual income? It doesn’t always have to do with money, some of us choose not to subscribe to archaic ideas of gender roles.
-
What’s with the swipe at dual income? It doesn’t always have to do with money, some of us choose not to subscribe to archaic ideas of gender roles.
1. Wasn't intended as a swipe. In fact, I noted that it's often necessary.
2. That said, while some families truly need a second income due to the rising costs of education, health care and the like, it's also worth noting that we spend far more today on discretionary items (entertainment, vacations, etc.) than prior generations. And while the size of our families is, on average, smaller, the size of our homes is 1,000-sq-feet larger than they were a couple of generations ago.
3. Sounds to me as if you're assuming that a single-income family would mean mom stays home and dad works ... so who's the one subscribing to archaic ideas about gender roles here?
-
For all the grief we give Millennials and Generation Z around here, let's keep in mind that they didn't choose to raise themselves on cable television, the internet, mobile devices and social media.
Good or bad - and we seem focused almost exclusively on the bad around here - they are who they are largely because of the way their parents (mostly GenXers, with some younger Boomers sprinkled in) chose to stick them in front of televisions, computers and iPhones so they could go about their busy, important lives. Which, to be fair to the parents, is often necessitated by the need - or perceived need - for two-income households these days.
Yeah, I'm glad we didn't do that very much. And I will tell you that's it's an absolute joy to witness one's kids as productive, well adjusted adults. God gave me one job that mattered.
-
3. Sounds to me as if you're assuming that a single-income family would mean mom stays home and dad works ... so who's the one subscribing to archaic ideas about gender roles here?
Oooohhh, nice one. Hang on, I got one for you...
“When you point your finger at someone else, there’s always three fingers pointing back at you.”
Aside: Out of respect for the contest, would you be willing to agree that “I know you are but what am I” and all “your momma...” cracks are off-limits?
-
Oooohhh, nice one. Hang on, I got one for you...
“When you point your finger at someone else, there’s always three fingers pointing back at you.”
Aside: Out of respect for the contest, would you be willing to agree that “I know you are but what am I” and all “your momma...” cracks are off-limits?
I've come to expect better from you, Benny. I'll assume you were out late last night and not at your sharpest.
-
I don't have a cell phone, what does that make me? I have Sirius radio and a tablet, but don't do many Apps..
I play an acoustic piano not digital, I drive a small fast car, what does that make me? I would never use Uber.
My point is that with maturity come discernment. The young folks are susceptible to fads and nearly everything is a fad.
-
I don't have a cell phone, what does that make me? I have Sirius radio and a tablet, but don't do many Apps..
I play an acoustic piano not digital, I drive a small fast car, what does that make me? I would never use Uber.
My point is that with maturity come discernment. The young folks are susceptible to fads and nearly everything is a fad.
In other words, old people are resistant to change.
I don't say that as a good or bad thing, but it tends to be true across the primate world. There are studies in which young chimps and gorillas learn to do new things better than older members of their species.
-
1. Wasn't intended as a swipe. In fact, I noted that it's often necessary.
2. That said, while some families truly need a second income due to the rising costs of education, health care and the like, it's also worth noting that we spend far more today on discretionary items (entertainment, vacations, etc.) than prior generations. And while the size of our families is, on average, smaller, the size of our homes is 1,000-sq-feet larger than they were a couple of generations ago.
3. Sounds to me as if you're assuming that a single-income family would mean mom stays home and dad works ... so who's the one subscribing to archaic ideas about gender roles here?
Another factor involved is the division of families. Grandparents retire & move away, parents move for jobs, & divorces spread families even more thin. The old system of grandparents, parents, & kids living in close proximity often doesn't exist like it once did. Because of that, modern parents are "on their own" more than they may have in the past.
It's anecdotal, so maybe this isn't a fair comparison, but when my niece was raised, my sister was a working single mom. But both of my parents were around, I was a teenager able to help out, & we had other family nearby that could help when needed. My wife & I don't have nearly as much of that as my parents retired 1,000 miles away, my sister & niece moved away, & my wife's only surviving parent is an hour away.
I understand how easy it is to put a kid in front of a screen. I do as much as I can to avoid it, but when I have to prepare dinner, 20-30 minutes of Sesame Street to prevent a crying baby can do a lot to help the sanity, & we're more fortunate than many parents because we have schedules flexible enough that one of us is always home.
-
In other words, old people are resistant to change.
I don't say that as a good or bad thing, but it tends to be true across the primate world. There are studies in which young chimps and gorillas learn to do new things better than older members of their species.
I have given this subject a lot, probably too much, of thought. When I was young I did a lot of things simply because they were new things. Over time most of the fads have worn off.
What is difficult for me to see is the nature of a fad. Music is a great example of fads, food habits and drinking is another one. Look at how "we" old folks dressed in the 60's, please.
So now we have millenials standing on the corner in the city (NYC) waving their cell phones in the air looking for their Uber. We have older folks, for the most part, standing on the same corner waving for a Yellow Cab.
In five or ten years what will the corner look like? Rickshaws, Uber cars, Yellow Cabs, moving sidewalks, everyone staying home? It has nothing to do with age. Some millenials take Yellow Cabs, some old folks take an Uber to the podiatrist, life is good.
-
Another factor involved is the division of families. Grandparents retire & move away, parents move for jobs, & divorces spread families even more thin. The old system of grandparents, parents, & kids living in close proximity often doesn't exist like it once did. Because of that, modern parents are "on their own" more than they may have in the past.
It's anecdotal, so maybe this isn't a fair comparison, but when my niece was raised, my sister was a working single mom. But both of my parents were around, I was a teenager able to help out, & we had other family nearby that could help when needed. My wife & I don't have nearly as much of that as my parents retired 1,000 miles away, my sister & niece moved away, & my wife's only surviving parent is an hour away.
I understand how easy it is to put a kid in front of a screen. I do as much as I can to avoid it, but when I have to prepare dinner, 20-30 minutes of Sesame Street to prevent a crying baby can do a lot to help the sanity, & we're more fortunate than many parents because we have schedules flexible enough that one of us is always home.
All 100% true brew. Our kids grew up without any family help to speak of. And of course they watched plenty of Sesame Street and Barney. But the one lesson they need to learn is that they're not the center of the universe or that their parents solve all of their problems. It's harder now. I think back to my youth. I learned to solve problems in the schoolyard by myself. Sometimes that involved fists with my very best friends.
I think the very best thing a parent can do these days is insist that their kids play sports. My kids learned so much from that experience, even though they weren't great athletes. And there'll be a time when their coach can get through to them better than you can. All good.
-
I have given this subject a lot, probably too much, of thought. When I was young I did a lot of things simply because they were new things. Over time most of the fads have worn off.
What is difficult for me to see is the nature of a fad. Music is a great example of fads, food habits and drinking is another one. Look at how "we" old folks dressed in the 60's, please.
So now we have millenials standing on the corner in the city (NYC) waving their cell phones in the air looking for their Uber. We have older folks, for the most part, standing on the same corner waving for a Yellow Cab.
In five or ten years what will the corner look like? Rickshaws, Uber cars, Yellow Cabs, moving sidewalks, everyone staying home? It has nothing to do with age. Some millenials take Yellow Cabs, some old folks take an Uber to the podiatrist, life is good.
But its not a specific service or invention. Food, clothing, trends that are very cyclical with short half life, I agree with (music not so much, but I could see an argument). Cell phones clearly are not a fad, if you have one or not. As for Uber, maybe Uber isn't the pre-eminent ride share service, but that method of on-demand transportation is the future, especially with self driving cars. Its not a "fad" its a shift in transportation technology and economics. Buggy whip makers probably called cars a fad that impressionable young people fell for.
Also, for the record, as a millennial, I know VERY few, if any of my peer group, with sample sets stretching from NY, Chicago, LA, Milwaukee, Nashville, and all 3 major cities in Ohio that use traditional cabs, short of emergency availability like a rainstorm. A WILDLY disproportionate amount of "old folks" have adapted to the new "fad" as opposed to younger generations continuing with a way of transportation favored in the past.
-
In other words, old people are resistant to change.
I don't say that as a good or bad thing, but it tends to be true across the primate world. There are studies in which young chimps and gorillas learn to do new things better than older members of their species.
Old people are resistant to some change, not all change. The advantage we older people have is we have lived life and have many more experiences than you do. That is why people pay for experience, to avoid really stupid dumb things being repeated by inexperienced people.
Change can be great. Change can be bad. Let's not treat change as if all change is wonderful. It isn't.
-
I think the very best thing a parent can do these days is insist that their kids play sports. My kids learned so much from that experience, even though they weren't great athletes. And there'll be a time when their coach can get through to them better than you can. All good.
At risk of this becoming a child-rearing thread, I think this is definitely worth a look. As soon as she's old enough, I want to get my daughter involved in public service, whether she wants to or not. Volunteer at soup kitchens, walk shelter dogs, pick up garbage at parks, and anything else we can think of on a regular basis. I want her to understand the importance of service to the community without reward as well as hoping it will teach her to appreciate both her own fortunes and understand those less fortunate.
Thinking about the non-voting aspect of this thread, I wonder how much public service has been passed down from generation to generation. While I didn't do a lot myself as a kid, my father was a volunteer firefighter in our community, a deacon at our church, and my mother spent time beyond her teaching career mentoring and tutoring kids.
Being a voter is a public service. Maybe teaching future generations the importance of other public services could reinforce that while voting may be a right, it is also a duty.
-
Another factor involved is the division of families. Grandparents retire & move away, parents move for jobs, & divorces spread families even more thin. The old system of grandparents, parents, & kids living in close proximity often doesn't exist like it once did. Because of that, modern parents are "on their own" more than they may have in the past.
It's anecdotal, so maybe this isn't a fair comparison, but when my niece was raised, my sister was a working single mom. But both of my parents were around, I was a teenager able to help out, & we had other family nearby that could help when needed. My wife & I don't have nearly as much of that as my parents retired 1,000 miles away, my sister & niece moved away, & my wife's only surviving parent is an hour away.
I understand how easy it is to put a kid in front of a screen. I do as much as I can to avoid it, but when I have to prepare dinner, 20-30 minutes of Sesame Street to prevent a crying baby can do a lot to help the sanity, & we're more fortunate than many parents because we have schedules flexible enough that one of us is always home.
Is this actually the case? Are families located further apart than they were a generation or two ago?
-
Is this actually the case? Are families located further apart than they were a generation or two ago?
In my case, yes. As I said, it's anecdotal for me, but entire communities have grown in places like Florida and Arizona from mostly migrating retired boomers. The Villages in Florida is a great example; when my aunt & uncle moved there 20 or so years ago, it was just a few hundred homes, now it boasts over 125,000 residents. We hear constantly about millennials migrating to cities for work, especially from rural areas.
I'd love to see research done on the topic, and it's entirely possible my experience compared to my sister's from 30 years ago is unique, but I do think the rapid growth of retirement communities (usually out-of-state transplants) and the shift of the younger generation from rural to urban areas due to a lack of jobs is a very real thing.
Maybe it's always been the case, but I think the combination of increased retirement wealth of the 60+ generations along with automation & big box retail that has shrunk job opportunities in rural America are very real things and those consequences will almost certainly be felt on new families.
-
At risk of this becoming a child-rearing thread, I think this is definitely worth a look. As soon as she's old enough, I want to get my daughter involved in public service, whether she wants to or not. Volunteer at soup kitchens, walk shelter dogs, pick up garbage at parks, and anything else we can think of on a regular basis. I want her to understand the importance of service to the community without reward as well as hoping it will teach her to appreciate both her own fortunes and understand those less fortunate.
Thinking about the non-voting aspect of this thread, I wonder how much public service has been passed down from generation to generation. While I didn't do a lot myself as a kid, my father was a volunteer firefighter in our community, a deacon at our church, and my mother spent time beyond her teaching career mentoring and tutoring kids.
Being a voter is a public service. Maybe teaching future generations the importance of other public services could reinforce that while voting may be a right, it is also a duty.
It takes a village some would say. I love the idea of mandatory public service (military, peace corps, or stateside programs). I will say that participating in these service programs does a couple of things. Opens the eyes to man's plight and those truly oppressed. Also opens the eyes to the waste and corruption by some agencies, too. I've come away from some furious at times, and other times feeling positive about mankind.
-
Old people are resistant to some change, not all change.
My comment was a generalization, not a universal truth. But I can see how one can infer otherwise. Management regrets the error.
Change can be great. Change can be bad. Let's not treat change as if all change is wonderful. It isn't.
Which is why I said
I don't say that as a good or bad thing
Please don't falsely represent what I said in the future.
-
Is this actually the case? Are families located further apart than they were a generation or two ago?
I did some googling but couldn't come up with an answer on family geographic mobility (in the time it took to eat a Beef n Cheddar.)
I can certainly say in my/wife's family, there's been a pattern for 25 years: Kids go to college then graduate and stay or move to entirely different locations, leaving the older generation in their home state. ~80% of our cousins do not live in the same US state as their parents.
I imagine this applies 10x to kids on the college track versus not, though, so not sure what the average would be.
-
Anecdotal to be sure, but other than my MiL no one is within 45 minutes of us. Same is true with everyone I went to MU with that I'm still tight with (though a good portion of those are military/ex-military so that may not count)
-
Please don't falsely represent what I said in the future.
Uhhhhh, if that is your desire, you should probably stay off the internet.
-
One of the things I find interesting this year is the concept of "branding." I have been traveling back and forth between Illinois and Florida and the same commercials -- new names -- are running in both places. I'm troubled by the ad hominum fallacies, the scare mongering and the lack of any substance in campaigns in either state.
It's so bad even Eric Zorn, an acknowledged liberal, seemed objective, unbiased and very clear in his column today.
Still, I voted. Did it Friday because I'll be in Wisconsin Tuesday.
-
The Generations
Which Generation are You?
https://www.careerplanner.com/Career-Articles/Generations.cfm
-
I have stayed off this thread until now because I abhor any political discussion on Scoop and will never take part in it. 8-)
Seriously, I'll wait to see what the demographics show from this election. Anecdotal evidence is that Millennials have finally been riled up enough to vote, but I'll be interested in seeing the actual post-election numbers.
-
Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread, but do millenials vote less than young people in years past? For example, over the past handful of elections, has a smaller percentage of the 18-35 age group voted than in the 70s, 80s or 90s?
-
I have stayed off this thread until now because I abhor any political discussion on Scoop and will never take part in it. 8-)
Seriously, I'll wait to see what the demographics show from this election. Anecdotal evidence is that Millennials have finally been riled up enough to vote, but I'll be interested in seeing the actual post-election numbers.
But with gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as in Georgia), unlikely to make a significant change on results.
-
But with gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as in Georgia), unlikely to make a significant change on results.
That will be true in many states, including (sadly) the corrupt state in which I live, but we'll still get raw voting numbers as to how many Millennials actually voted, which is what this thread is about.
-
But with gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as in Georgia), unlikely to make a significant change on results.
It's been widely reported that many locations have had early voter turnout already exceed total turnout for the 2014 midterms. I think the demographic information for early voting this year could be fascinating, and probably has a ton of value to candidates/parties in how they conduct their campaigns in the future. Objectively, I wonder if a lot of early voters have been those worried about potential disenfranchisement giving themselves extra time in case there's an issue the first time they show up to the polls.
-
Vehemently disagree, Citizens United while extremely frustrating is largely an excuse for people to not engage in the process "why should I vote/volunteer/make a difference, the corporate money is just gonna box me out." Further it is symptomatic of(not the cause of) the nationalization of our politics, which I think is calamitous to our political discourse.
Prime example, in state senate and representative races in southeastern Wisconsin the far and away #1 issue being thrown at each candidate is around pre-existing medical conditions. Practically speaking (regardless of position) what impact can a state rep have on pre-existing coverage? Sure, it's worth to have a position on, but why is it the #1 issue to the exclusion of almost everything at that level of political office?
Lastly, every younger generation has been "disillusioned" by the older generation....this isn't some strange new phenomenon that impacts only millennials.
The problem though is that you are voting for a party, not an individual who will represent you and your district. Those who go "off the reservation" are primaried. That's also where Citizens United comes in. Once a rep or senator votes against the party line the money flows to an opponent who will vote party line. It's no longer about representing individuals, it's about representing the parties, special interests and benefactors. Then you have unqualified sycophants put into cabinet positions and you get people saying "what does it matter?"
It's sad though. People died for the right to vote. One party is currently doing all they can to prevent many of those groups from voting - they brag that lower turnout means victory for htem. Exercise your right!
-
From The Hill: "But turnout has increased the most among younger voters, minorities and people who rarely or never vote. Among voters aged 18-29, turnout is up in 39 of 41 states for which data is available, said John Della Volpe, who directs polling for Harvard University's Institute of Politics. For voters aged 30-39, turnout is up in all 41 states where data is available."
-
But with gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as in Georgia), unlikely to make a significant change on results.
Gerrymandering, like communism, is a red herring. Not in that it isn't real, but in that it isn't some new invention and it's actually a feature not a fault.
-
The problem though is that you are voting for a party, not an individual who will represent you and your district. Those who go "off the reservation" are primaried. That's also where Citizens United comes in. Once a rep or senator votes against the party line the money flows to an opponent who will vote party line. It's no longer about representing individuals, it's about representing the parties, special interests and benefactors. Then you have unqualified sycophants put into cabinet positions and you get people saying "what does it matter?"
It's sad though. People died for the right to vote. One party is currently doing all they can to prevent many of those groups from voting - they brag that lower turnout means victory for htem. Exercise your right!
Are you familiar with ActBlue? It has far more influence in elections this cycle then random PACs. Also this is why I support open primaries and despise the two party system, but that is true whether Citizens United were a thing or not.
-
Gerrymandering, like communism, is a red herring. Not in that it isn't real, but in that it isn't some new invention and it's actually a feature not a fault.
I'm aware it's not new.
But would you mind explaining the bolded?
-
Gerrymandering, like communism, is a red herring. Not in that it isn't real, but in that it isn't some new invention and it's actually a feature not a fault.
It's both a feature and a fault. It isn't new, but the drawing of lines should not be done with the intent of keeping parties or candidates in power. When gerrymandering is done solely to preserve or gain power, it is absolutely a fault, no matter which side it benefits. That undermines the will of the people.
-
I'm aware it's not new.
But would you mind explaining the bolded?
Sure, Gerrymandering (portmanteau of Gerry and Salamander) was "invented" as a means of protecting the power base of an up and coming political power (democratic republicans) and later became general practice by all parties to either maintain the majority or preserve a seat at the table as a minority power. In our two party system, both parties can benefit from it depending on who is in charge at the time....so both parties want to preserve it, they only complain when they aren't in power. Further, it's a mechanism to keep the two party system itself in power.
I'd be all for a citizen board that is elected for that position only that is responsible for redistricting, but the parties don't want that because then they can't utilize the tool for the sake of power. Then again, I'm also for term limits on all congressional positions, returning senator selection to the state legislatures, and the legalization of marijuana....so what do I know.
Personally, I think all the complaints about gerrymandering, electoral college, "unfairness" of the Senate distribution, etc are all symptoms of the nationalization and sportification of our politics. The system was designed and adapted over the years to prevent two tyrannies, that of the majority and of the minority. The federal system is specifically designed to maximize government at the local level while limiting it to key areas at the national level. The idea is that if you want to live your life a certain way there will almost always be a place in this country where you can live that life. That's why people cluster in urban centers or live in the middle of know where Idaho where the next neighbor is 6 miles away. Changing the rules by and large feels like a means to grab for power so one group or groups can force their vision on another.
[/rant off]
-
You are absolutely correct in your understanding of the origin and reasoning behind gerrymandering. The question is (and was on the ballot in Michigan) whether it is time to do away with that concept or not? Would it improve democracy, would it be more fair, without it? What are the unintended consequences of doing away with it?
Harry Truman: The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.
-
If there was any one single policy that I could change with a magic wand -- or with a vote -- it would be to outlaw gerrymandering. It's ridiculous to have a procedure in place in which legislators get to choose the voters, instead of vice versa.
Iowa, if I'm not mistaken, is one state that has a bipartisan panel that draws the lines for voting districts. There probably are others, but not many. This obviously is preferable to what most states have now.
Of course what happens is that when Party A is in power, Party B wants to make gerrymandering illegal but Party A tells em to go take a hike. But if and when Party B gets control, Party A suddenly has found religion on gerrymandering and wants to make it illegal; and then the equally hypocritical Party B tells em to go take a hike. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This is EXACTLY what happened in NC, where the Dems ruled for decades and gerrymandered to keep control but now are whining that the GOP is doing the same since winning both state houses in the red tsunami of 2010.
Because the GOP is generally better at playing these kinds of games than the Dems are, the GOP here has weaponized gerrymandering since taking over. They have been bold about it, coming right out and admitting it. They have been ordered by courts to redraw the districts several times because of obvious racial intent. The most recent ruling came just a month or two ago but the court let the GOP keep the lines for this election because changing them at that late a date would have been "too confusing."
Before SCOTUS took a turn to the right I was hopeful that those against gerrymandering would win, but now I don't have my hopes up.
MEANWHILE, BACK ON TOPIC ...
According to the NC Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, more young voters have cast early ballots in North Carolina than in 2014.
Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 submitted 7.3 percent of the ballots accepted, compared to 5.9 percent during the last midterms.
I view that as a positive sign.
-
If there was any one single policy that I could change with a magic wand -- or with a vote -- it would be to outlaw gerrymandering. It's ridiculous to have a procedure in place in which legislators get to choose the voters, instead of vice versa.
I live in a gerrymandered district. Unless the districts get re-drawn, my representative will always be a Democrat.
-
But with gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as in Georgia), unlikely to make a significant change on results.
Gerrymandering has been around for a long time, both parties have benefited. Supreme Court had two cases in the last 12 months, one benefiting each party. Fraud has been around for a long time, both parties have benefited. Voter suppression has been around for a long time, both parties have benefited. Read your history.
-
If there was any one single policy that I could change with a magic wand -- or with a vote -- it would be to outlaw gerrymandering. It's ridiculous to have a procedure in place in which legislators get to choose the voters, instead of vice versa.
And what would you do, draw up districts in straight lines? Without doing that, how does not one get accused of gerrymandering? Anything other than a totally random line drawing will be to protect classes or power, there is no other way around it.
-
My comment was a generalization, not a universal truth. But I can see how one can infer otherwise. Management regrets the error.
Which is why I said
Please don't falsely represent what I said in the future.
Except what you actually said was "I don't say that as a good or bad thing, but it tends to be true across the primate world"
.
In your response to me, you left off half of your own sentence which was you believe it tends to be true about resistance to change. My response to you was why people sometimes resist change.
Look at what is going on the last 24 months. #resist Isn't that RESISTING change? Are they only old people doing this? Young? Change isn't necessarily the harboring of old people, but regular people that don't want things done against their view of the world.
-
If there was any one single policy that I could change with a magic wand -- or with a vote -- it would be to outlaw gerrymandering. It's ridiculous to have a procedure in place in which legislators get to choose the voters, instead of vice versa.
Iowa, if I'm not mistaken, is one state that has a bipartisan panel that draws the lines for voting districts. There probably are others, but not many. This obviously is preferable to what most states have now.
Of course what happens is that when Party A is in power, Party B wants to make gerrymandering illegal but Party A tells em to go take a hike. But if and when Party B gets control, Party A suddenly has found religion on gerrymandering and wants to make it illegal; and then the equally hypocritical Party B tells em to go take a hike. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This is EXACTLY what happened in NC, where the Dems ruled for decades and gerrymandered to keep control but now are whining that the GOP is doing the same since winning both state houses in the red tsunami of 2010.
Because the GOP is generally better at playing these kinds of games than the Dems are, the GOP here has weaponized gerrymandering since taking over. They have been bold about it, coming right out and admitting it. They have been ordered by courts to redraw the districts several times because of obvious racial intent. The most recent ruling came just a month or two ago but the court let the GOP keep the lines for this election because changing them at that late a date would have been "too confusing."
Before SCOTUS took a turn to the right I was hopeful that those against gerrymandering would win, but now I don't have my hopes up.
MEANWHILE, BACK ON TOPIC ...
According to the NC Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, more young voters have cast early ballots in North Carolina than in 2014.
Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 submitted 7.3 percent of the ballots accepted, compared to 5.9 percent during the last midterms.
I view that as a positive sign.
I question what quantitative negative impact gerrymandering has really delivered over the years. I'm sure there is some really blatant gerrymandering (like the original where the district in question was drawn like a salamandar...like has does that make any sense), but by and large the check against that is the courts which we see happening. Further, people tend to cluster anyway along socio-economic, demographic, and political lines anyway so how do you really know what is truly gerrymandering? Like I said, I'm all for a mechanism for redistricting that doesn't put the foxes in charge of the hen house but I don't think it's even a top 10 item for making significant impact on our democracy.
-
Except what you actually said was "I don't say that as a good or bad thing, but it tends to be true across the primate world"
.
In your response to me, you left off half of your own sentence which was you believe it tends to be true about resistance to change. My response to you was why people sometimes resist change.
Look at what is going on the last 24 months. #resist Isn't that RESISTING change? Are they only old people doing this? Young? Change isn't necessarily the harboring of old people, but regular people that don't want things done against their view of the world.
Ya know what another word for the phrase "tends to be true"......generalization.
-
Washington Post article from earlier this year. Headline: "Maryland’s redistricting case reminds us: Both parties gerrymander. A lot."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/28/marylands-redistricting-case-reminds-us-both-parties-gerrymander-a-lot/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b89b404a6fc1
-
And what would you do, draw up districts in straight lines? Without doing that, how does not one get accused of gerrymandering? Anything other than a totally random line drawing will be to protect classes or power, there is no other way around it.
So you are correct that both parties do it. (Your constant excuse for everything I guess.) But the methods being used are more extreme now.
So how do you do it otherwise? Something like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.0259db03708c
Of course the software would need to be open-source so the crazies don't start spouting conspiracy theories.
-
And what would you do, draw up districts in straight lines? Without doing that, how does not one get accused of gerrymandering? Anything other than a totally random line drawing will be to protect classes or power, there is no other way around it.
As I effen said, Iowa doesn't gerrymander.
https://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/staff-editorial/gerrymandering-disputes-are-reminder-that-iowa-is-different-20180127
Passed in the early 1980s and signed into law by Gov. Robert Ray, the Iowa method produces maps drawn by the nonpartisans Legislative Services Agency. The aim is to create reasonable districts with equal populations — with agency workers never considering existing lawmakers. So, incumbents have, on several occasions, been forced to move or face off in primaries.
While there are no requirements for competitive districts, the process as well independent voter registrations often result in tight races. As a testament, legislative control swings during elections between redistricting.
So, for starters, I would implement something like this. As the article goes on to state, there are challenges in this system, too, but at least it's a start.
Gerrymandering is the single worst thing in politics IMHO, regardless of which party benefits in which state at which time. It lets legislators choose voters; I like to think that wouldn't have been what the Founding Fathers intended.
Now stop arguing for the sense of arguing, something that -- curiously -- chicos did multiple times per day on issues just like this one.
But yeah ... what's a chicos?
-
But the methods being used are more extreme now.
Could you expand on this?
-
Here is a simplified graphical representation of what my district looks like. Cleveland and Akron are roughly 30 miles apart. No question what was intended when they drew this district up.
--------------------
| |
| |
| Cleveland |
| |
| |
------| |--------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
------| |--------
| |
| |
| Akron |
| |
| |
--------------------
-
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/10/the-big-sort-revisited/504830/ (https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/10/the-big-sort-revisited/504830/)
Relevant article of the "self gerrymandering" that is going on.
-
Could you expand on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/sunday/computers-gerrymandering-wisconsin.html
"But this isn’t just a politics story; it’s also a technology story. Gerrymandering used to be an art, but advanced computation has made it a science. Wisconsin’s Republican legislators, after their victory in the census year of 2010, tried out map after map, tweak after tweak. They ran each potential map through computer algorithms that tested its performance in a wide range of political climates. The map they adopted is precisely engineered to assure Republican control in all but the most extreme circumstances."
IMPORTANT NOTE TO CHICOS: I know the other side does it too.
-
In NC, one court threw out one GOP plan because it "targets African-Americans with almost surgical precision."
One GOP legislator came right out and said: “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."
BTW, there are more Dems than Republicans in NC, and more Independents (or "Unaffiliated" voters, as we're called here) than either party.
But, as I said, the Republicans have taken what the Dems used to do and have done it better, thanks in great part to technological advances that show them how to draw amoeba-shaped districts that lump all the black voters in a few districts.
-
Both sides have been guilty of gerrymandering. Unfortunately, my Republican party has been too aggressive with voter suppression recently. It's pretty sad. Though I think it may be backfiring now.
-
In NC, one court threw out one GOP plan because it "targets African-Americans with almost surgical precision."
One GOP legislator came right out and said: “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."
BTW, there are more Dems than Republicans in NC, and more Independents (or "Unaffiliated" voters, as we're called here) than either party.
But, as I said, the Republicans have taken what the Dems used to do and have done it better, thanks in great part to technological advances that show them how to draw amoeba-shaped districts that lump all the black voters in a few districts.
The technology aspect is intriguing, especially in the hands of a citizen panel who then use the algo's to optimize for a maximum number of swing districts. One area of concern, and I know it's a bi-product of the redistricting being tied to the census, is that demographic information probably shouldn't be relevant in the redistricting efforts. If I don't use demographic information and only use voter registration, I can't be biasing based on race or gender either way because it's not a factor.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/sunday/computers-gerrymandering-wisconsin.html
"But this isn’t just a politics story; it’s also a technology story. Gerrymandering used to be an art, but advanced computation has made it a science. Wisconsin’s Republican legislators, after their victory in the census year of 2010, tried out map after map, tweak after tweak. They ran each potential map through computer algorithms that tested its performance in a wide range of political climates. The map they adopted is precisely engineered to assure Republican control in all but the most extreme circumstances."
IMPORTANT NOTE TO CHICOS: I know the other side does it too.
Yes, the data science aspect is going to be very interesting. One thing I'm hoping will die with what I hope is the current death throes of tribalism is the assumption that demographic monoliths will always vote with one party over another. Since we're are stuck with the parties we have, they need to do a better job of figuring out how to reach out across demographics and not silo themselves.
-
Except what you actually said was "I don't say that as a good or bad thing, but it tends to be true across the primate world"
.
In your response to me, you left off half of your own sentence which was you believe it tends to be true about resistance to change. My response to you was why people sometimes resist change.
Look at what is going on the last 24 months. #resist Isn't that RESISTING change? Are they only old people doing this? Young? Change isn't necessarily the harboring of old people, but regular people that don't want things done against their view of the world.
Your reading comprehension sucks. "Across the primate" means humans, gorilla, chimpanzees, etc. There are studies that young primates such as chimps and gorillas learn to use new tools better than adults of their species.
Nowhere did I say all change is good or resisisting change is bad. I omitted the second half of that particular sentence because it was irrelevant to the point of whether change is good or bad. Change can be both good and bad.
-
Sure, Gerrymandering (portmanteau of Gerry and Salamander) was "invented" as a means of protecting the power base of an up and coming political power (democratic republicans) and later became general practice by all parties to either maintain the majority or preserve a seat at the table as a minority power. In our two party system, both parties can benefit from it depending on who is in charge at the time....so both parties want to preserve it, they only complain when they aren't in power. Further, it's a mechanism to keep the two party system itself in power.
I'd be all for a citizen board that is elected for that position only that is responsible for redistricting, but the parties don't want that because then they can't utilize the tool for the sake of power. Then again, I'm also for term limits on all congressional positions, returning senator selection to the state legislatures, and the legalization of marijuana....so what do I know.
Personally, I think all the complaints about gerrymandering, electoral college, "unfairness" of the Senate distribution, etc are all symptoms of the nationalization and sportification of our politics. The system was designed and adapted over the years to prevent two tyrannies, that of the majority and of the minority. The federal system is specifically designed to maximize government at the local level while limiting it to key areas at the national level. The idea is that if you want to live your life a certain way there will almost always be a place in this country where you can live that life. That's why people cluster in urban centers or live in the middle of know where Idaho where the next neighbor is 6 miles away. Changing the rules by and large feels like a means to grab for power so one group or groups can force their vision on another.
[/rant off]
Maybe I'm missing something or don't understand something about your explanation but I don't see anything here that describes gerrymandering as anything other than a bad thing (fault). I wouldn't call gerrymandering a good thing (feature).
-
Gerrymandering has been around for a long time, both parties have benefited. Supreme Court had two cases in the last 12 months, one benefiting each party. Fraud has been around for a long time, both parties have benefited. Voter suppression has been around for a long time, both parties have benefited. Read your history.
Um. I'm well aware of what is in our history.
Is your post here merely to say "bad things have been around for a long time and both parties have done them so we shouldn't try to stop them from being done"?
Because if that's not your point, I'm not sure what your post is about.
-
Personally, I think all the complaints about gerrymandering, electoral college, "unfairness" of the Senate distribution, etc are all symptoms of the nationalization and sportification of our politics. The system was designed and adapted over the years to prevent two tyrannies, that of the majority and of the minority. The federal system is specifically designed to maximize government at the local level while limiting it to key areas at the national level. The idea is that if you want to live your life a certain way there will almost always be a place in this country where you can live that life. That's why people cluster in urban centers or live in the middle of know where Idaho where the next neighbor is 6 miles away. Changing the rules by and large feels like a means to grab for power so one group or groups can force their vision on another.
[/rant off]
Respectfully, the federal system was not established to maximize government at the local level, and certainly not to allow people to live their lives however they wanted. The whole point of creating the Constitution in the first place was that the Articles of Confederation - intended to maximize government at the local level - were a train wreck and national leaders recognized that a centralized government with broad authority was badly needed if the fledgling country was going to survive.
Also, the idea of changing the rules isn't some unfair means of grabbing power. Iit's something that was intentionally built into the system by the government's framers because they recognized that changing social, economic and political conditions would necessitate it. One might say it's a feature, not a fault.
-
Maybe I'm missing something or don't understand something about your explanation but I don't see anything here that describes gerrymandering as anything other than a bad thing (fault). I wouldn't call gerrymandering a good thing (feature).
It can be used to each parties detriment or advantage and has a very strong tendency to self correct (give politicians power which they misapply/abuse and then voters across the spectrum punish that party). It is a feature because it keeps the two party system in place and ultimately (political philosophy aside) has no long term ill-effects.
It we truly wanted to eliminate gerrymandering I would propose the following election reforms:
1. Open primaries (if you end up with 2 dems or 2 repubs or 2 libertarians or 2 martians in the general, so be it)
2. Limit general elections to twice a year (one spring and one fall) and an associated primary for each.
3. Make all four election days on a weekend or a national day off
4. You can't vote in the general if you don't vote in the primary
Separate reform: citizen redistricting boards who run different algorithm models based on party registration with the intent to optimize for 1. convenience and 2. number of competitive districts. To serve on the citizen board you cannot have held elected office at any time and you are prevented from running for elective office at any point after serving on the board until a redistricting cycle has been completed in which you didn't serve.
But again, gerrymandering is a feature of the modern political system to keep the parties in power.
-
Respectfully, the federal system was not established to maximize government at the local level, and certainly not to allow people to live their lives however they wanted. The whole point of creating the Constitution in the first place was that the Articles of Confederation - intended to maximize government at the local level - were a train wreck and national leaders recognized that a centralized government with broad authority was badly needed if the fledgling country was going to survive.
Also, the idea of changing the rules isn't some unfair means of grabbing power. Iit's something that was intentionally built into the system by the government's framers because they recognized that changing social, economic and political conditions would necessitate it. One might say it's a feature, not a fault.
The Articles of Confederation had almost no central government and the founders realized that some common causes required a strong central government for mutual benefit. The Constitution was created to be the framework for the ability to deliver that common cause (mutual defense being the most obvious), however Amendments 9 and 10 are specifically there to entitle citizens and states to "self-govern" without interference from the federal government. There is a reason the federal government has explicit powers whereas the person and state have implicit powers.
You are correct, the system of government is built to adapt to changing times and was intentional by the framers. However, they also set the bar to achieve that change to be very tough to clear and take a long time to achieve (same purpose the senate serves, to prevent government from acting too rashly). So if the vast majority of citizens agree that the electoral college isn't working then that change can be enacted, but IMO the way current advocates for reform position this type of change it is along purely ideological lines (we're not winning and we should be so it needs to change). Similar to the removal of the filibuster, changes have consequences that can be both foreseen and unforeseen.
-
It can be used to each parties detriment or advantage and has a very strong tendency to self correct (give politicians power which they misapply/abuse and then voters across the spectrum punish that party). It is a feature because it keeps the two party system in place and ultimately (political philosophy aside) has no long term ill-effects.
It we truly wanted to eliminate gerrymandering I would propose the following election reforms:
1. Open primaries (if you end up with 2 dems or 2 repubs or 2 libertarians or 2 martians in the general, so be it)
2. Limit general elections to twice a year (one spring and one fall) and an associated primary for each.
3. Make all four election days on a weekend or a national day off
4. You can't vote in the general if you don't vote in the primary
Separate reform: citizen redistricting boards who run different algorithm models based on party registration with the intent to optimize for 1. convenience and 2. number of competitive districts. To serve on the citizen board you cannot have held elected office at any time and you are prevented from running for elective office at any point after serving on the board until a redistricting cycle has been completed in which you didn't serve.
But again, gerrymandering is a feature of the modern political system to keep the parties in power.
Regarding open primaries, how does that do anything but simply entrench the ruling party?
Say you have an open primary in a heavily Republican district. Two Republicans run, along with a Democrat, Libertarian, etc. The GOP candidates place first and second and then one candidate drops out, creating a no contest in the general.
How does that make the system better?
Regarding the requirement to vote in the primary:
1. What's the benefit? How does that eliminate gerrymandering?
2. Some people choose not to vote in the primary because when they do, they're required to declare a party (like, in Illinois, you either can pull a Republican or Democratic ballot). Do you disenfranchise these people because they don't want to declare a party?
-
Regarding open primaries, how does that do anything but simply entrench the ruling party?
Say you have an open primary in a heavily Republican district. Two Republicans run, along with a Democrat, Libertarian, etc. The GOP candidates place first and second and then one candidate drops out, creating a no contest in the general.
How does that make the system better?
Regarding the requirement to vote in the primary:
1. What's the benefit? How does that eliminate gerrymandering?
2. Some people choose not to vote in the primary because when they do, they're required to declare a party (like, in Illinois, you either can pull a Republican or Democratic ballot). Do you disenfranchise these people because they don't want to declare a party?
Because it forces the candidates to articulate positions on issues instead of just hiding behind an R or a D. It also moderates the extremes (a Trump style candidate is a lot less likely to win in a district because moderate Rs and Dems might pool together to select other candidates). Further, primary voting would very likely go up so it's much less of a base election and much more representative of the district which theoretically produces elected officials less tied to party.
1. See above, broader based in the primary put candidates are more tied to constituents than party. Additionally you increase the likelihood of third party candidates making an impact on the general by making it through the primary.
2. Open primaries by definition do not require party affiliation. You wouldn't have to declare a party, just go vote.
-
Doesn't California do open primaries or something similar?
-
I question what quantitative negative impact gerrymandering has really delivered over the years. I'm sure there is some really blatant gerrymandering (like the original where the district in question was drawn like a salamandar...like has does that make any sense), but by and large the check against that is the courts which we see happening. Further, people tend to cluster anyway along socio-economic, demographic, and political lines anyway so how do you really know what is truly gerrymandering? Like I said, I'm all for a mechanism for redistricting that doesn't put the foxes in charge of the hen house but I don't think it's even a top 10 item for making significant impact on our democracy.
A negative impact?
Austin, TX is a city of almost 1M people. It is one of the most liberal cities in the US. Yet it is represented by 5 Rs and 1 D due totally to gerrymandering.
The negative impact is that the people of a large city have no say in their national representation.
In Pennsylvania, over 50% of votes cast for the House were for Democrats. The republicans won 13 out of 18 races STRICTLY BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING. Gerrymandering takes away the rights of citizens to choose who will represent them in Congress
-
A negative impact?
Austin, TX is a city of almost 1M people. It is one of the most liberal cities in the US. Yet it is represented by 5 Rs and 1 D due totally to gerrymandering.
The negative impact is that the people of a large city have no say in their national representation.
In Pennsylvania, over 50% of votes cast for the House were for Democrats. The republicans won 13 out of 18 races STRICTLY BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING. Gerrymandering takes away the rights of citizens to choose who will represent them in Congress
Yep, that's the whole idea: Legislators choose voters, rather than vice versa. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
-
The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
Of course, the Founding Fathers also believed that only white, male property owners should vote, which at the time accounted for less than 10 percent of the population ... so, there's all sorts of reasons the may be turning over in the graves on Election Day.
-
Of course, the Founding Fathers also believed that only white, male property owners should vote, which at the time accounted for less than 10 percent of the population ... so, there's all sorts of reasons the may be turning over in the graves on Election Day.
True dat.
Indeed, I only refer to the "Founding Fathers" facetiously.
Some folks love to make references to what the Founding Fathers meant ... as long as it agrees with their own narratives. As soon as it doesn't ... they play the "things have changed since then" game.
-
As I effen said, Iowa doesn't gerrymander.
https://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/staff-editorial/gerrymandering-disputes-are-reminder-that-iowa-is-different-20180127
Some say it does. The difference is they have "non-partisan" people in charge of drawing the lines. As one article stated, it isn't partisan free, but much less partisan than when politicians are drawing the lines. To find truly partisan free people is a chore in today's world, thus to say it is non-partisan may stretch the credibility some. But I understand your point. Please understand my point is that there is no perfect solution when drawing lines that contain people in them. Your point, which I share, is that a fairer way needs to be done. Today, both sides have butchered the process and done so for a long time. The two latest situations, Wisconsin (GOP) and Maryland (DEM) are examples of the abuse.
-
Both sides have been guilty of gerrymandering. Unfortunately, my Republican party has been too aggressive with voter suppression recently. It's pretty sad. Though I think it may be backfiring now.
You said earlier you were a Democrat, did you switch parties?
-
A negative impact?
Austin, TX is a city of almost 1M people. It is one of the most liberal cities in the US. Yet it is represented by 5 Rs and 1 D due totally to gerrymandering.
The negative impact is that the people of a large city have no say in their national representation.
In Pennsylvania, over 50% of votes cast for the House were for Democrats. The republicans won 13 out of 18 races STRICTLY BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING. Gerrymandering takes away the rights of citizens to choose who will represent them in Congress
I'd love to see that Austin map because that is insane and also very likely unconstitutional.
Pennsylvania's map is being challenged in court as well and I expect it to have to be redrawn.
I agree that gerrymandering is an issue and its amplified by the fact that there are relatively straight forward mechanisms for limiting its impact that we choose not to.implement. However, I think it is viewed as a bigger issue than it is in this environment because it gets conflated with the fact that our representative government is built to limit the power of majorities.
-
Some say it does. The difference is they have "non-partisan" people in charge of drawing the lines. As one article stated, it isn't partisan free, but much less partisan than when politicians are drawing the lines. To find truly partisan free people is a chore in today's world, thus to say it is non-partisan may stretch the credibility some. But I understand your point. Please understand my point is that there is no perfect solution when drawing lines that contain people in them. Your point, which I share, is that a fairer way needs to be done. Today, both sides have butchered the process and done so for a long time. The two latest situations, Wisconsin (GOP) and Maryland (DEM) are examples of the abuse.
We agree (mostly)! Confetti time!!
-
Some say it does.
ChicosBothSides at his finest.
-
You said earlier you were a Democrat, did you switch parties?
Says the switcher-in-chief. LOL
-
Says the switcher-in-chief. LOL
Been a Democrat since registering for the first time in my life in the 70's. Granted, both parties have massively changed and I don't recognize either of them any longer, but registration hasn't changed. No switching.
-
No thanks to the Milennial non-voters, but I think Democrats and Republicans garnered over 98% of the vote nationwide.
To hell with compulsory voting, right? Long live partisan histrionics and fostering divisions & hatred amongst the peasantry all the while - the very second the cameras go off - our elected leaders clamor across the aisle to play beer-league softball and hockey together in D.C.
-
No thanks to the Milennial non-voters, but I think Democrats and Republicans garnered over 98% of the vote nationwide.
To hell with compulsory voting, right? Long live partisan histrionics and fostering divisions & hatred amongst the peasantry all the while - the very second the cameras go off - our elected leaders clamor across the aisle to play beer-league softball and hockey together in D.C.
Why are you convinced that when the people who don't vote today are required to vote (in this alternate United States where the First Amendment no longer exists) they're going to take the time to educate themselves about poorly funded - and therefore poorly exposed - third party candidates?
Seems to me that the people too lazy to vote today aren't going to suddenly become super engaged in the process of learning about the candidates and their positions. They'll just pick the names they heard or - as has happened in other countries - check the names at the top of the ballot.
-
No thanks to the Milennial non-voters, but I think Democrats and Republicans garnered over 98% of the vote nationwide.
To hell with compulsory voting, right? Long live partisan histrionics and fostering divisions & hatred amongst the peasantry all the while - the very second the cameras go off - our elected leaders clamor across the aisle to play beer-league softball and hockey together in D.C.
I struggle to understand why you think compulsory voting is going to fix this. Getting people who don't care enough to vote to actually do so doesn't seem like it would do anything.
If you want to get rid of the two party system, getting rid of gerrymandering would be a good first step. Couple that with a Parliamentary system and you've got something. Or if you don't want to do that, instead of having 435 individual House districts, have 145 districts that each elect three members. Each of these would be more effective than compulsory voting.
-
Today, both sides have butchered the process and done so for a long time. The two latest situations, Wisconsin (GOP) and Maryland (DEM) are examples of the abuse.
Dear ChicosBothSides,
8 of the 10 most gerrymandered states are Republican
https://rantt.com/the-top-10-most-gerrymandered-states-in-america/
Overall, gerrymandering swings an estimated 17 seats from blue to red
https://www.azavea.com/blog/2017/07/19/gerrymandered-states-ranked-efficiency-gap-seat-advantage/
In 2010, Republicans had a +7.2% popular vote margin and flipped 63 seats
Last night, Democrats had a +9.2% popular vote margin and will flip ~33 seats
The difference is gerrymandering
Your both sides false equivalency is as fake as you are.
-
I'd love to see that Austin map because that is insane and also very likely unconstitutional.
Pennsylvania's map is being challenged in court as well and I expect it to have to be redrawn.
I agree that gerrymandering is an issue and its amplified by the fact that there are relatively straight forward mechanisms for limiting its impact that we choose not to.implement. However, I think it is viewed as a bigger issue than it is in this environment because it gets conflated with the fact that our representative government is built to limit the power of majorities.
Here: https://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/e569/pols_set5.jpg
It's gerrymandered so that the downtown (very blue) is divided among each of four districts that each include a large suburban/rural area that votes very red.
-
No thanks to the Milennial non-voters, but I think Democrats and Republicans garnered over 98% of the vote nationwide.
To hell with compulsory voting, right? Long live partisan histrionics and fostering divisions & hatred amongst the peasantry all the while - the very second the cameras go off - our elected leaders clamor across the aisle to play beer-league softball and hockey together in D.C.
Are you asking non voters to be compelled to vote for one of the two parties? Does that mean out in California where they had an all Democrat Senate race, it will be forced to have a candidate from each? How do you know if these non voters will simply sign their ballot or check in, and leave everything blank, or are you requiring people to vote for people they do not agree with?
Aside from the fact your idea is unconstitutional, what are you demanding?
-
Gerrymander. Had to share this after walking in on my wife watching the girls. My term for her watching the View. Joy Behar is ranting that the Republicans expanded their lead in the Senate due to gerrymandering. At that point I walked away. The stupid box (TV) continues unabated.
-
Senate elections are always interesting because you have to go back to six years prior to look at what happened then. This year's was based on the 2012 Presidential election, which meant the Democrats had a lot of territory to defend.
In 2020 the Republicans will have to defend 21 out of 33, which means if the Democrats do well in the Presidential election, the Senate might go blue as well. (Or if Trump wins another term, in 2022 the Republicans will have to defend 21 out of 34. (But many of the 2022 stats look less "flipable" than 2020 does.)
-
Senate elections are always interesting because you have to go back to six years prior to look at what happened then. This year's was based on the 2012 Presidential election, which meant the Democrats had a lot of territory to defend.
In 2020 the Republicans will have to defend 21 out of 33, which means if the Democrats do well in the Presidential election, the Senate might go blue as well. (Or if Trump wins another term, in 2022 the Republicans will have to defend 21 out of 34. (But many of the 2022 stats look less "flipable" than 2020 does.)
Very good point, Sultan. Tiny was fortunate that Dem senators had to play defense this year in heavily red states that Tiny won handily 2 years ago. In 2020, the opposite will be true.
I never make predictions regarding this stuff. All I said this year is that if the Dems got out the vote decently, they would flip the House -- simply because of math -- but wouldn't win the Senate. It wasn't a bold prediction, it was logical. If they didn't get out the vote, both houses of Congress would stay in GOP control. Mostly, I said: "We'll see."
As for 2020, I'll say similar. Two more years of Tiny is simply going to stoke more hate, fear and anger. He won the presidency by about 78K combined votes over three states - Pa, Wis and Mich, and all three states seemed to go back blue-ish this year. If the Dems field a candidate with fewer skeletons and flaws than the one from 2016 (which seems likely) and if they are energized to vote at anywhere near the enthusiasm level of the "Obama coalition" years, they will win the presidency and probably both houses of Congress. Again, it's simple math.
Year after year, the country is getting less and less white-male-y. I mean, look at who won elections this cycle. This is not a trend, it's simply the evolution of our democratic republic.
-
Or if you don't want to do that, instead of having 435 individual House districts, have 145 districts that each elect three members.
First I've heard of the concept, I'm curious how would this resolve some of the current issues? And practically speaking would it be that each district has 3 reps and all 3 positions are elected each time?
-
A negative impact?
Austin, TX is a city of almost 1M people. It is one of the most liberal cities in the US. Yet it is represented by 5 Rs and 1 D due totally to gerrymandering.
The negative impact is that the people of a large city have no say in their national representation.
In Pennsylvania, over 50% of votes cast for the House were for Democrats. The republicans won 13 out of 18 races STRICTLY BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING. Gerrymandering takes away the rights of citizens to choose who will represent them in Congress
Yep, Austin is the pefrect example. Split into 6 districts, one running nearly 200 miles to Houston.
In North Carolina in 2014, the Democrats received 1.3 million more votes than GOP candidates yet only won 4 of 13 seats. Gerrymandering was always bad (regardless of the party in charge) but using sophisticated computer software to draw the districts to a party's advantage made it every worse. I'm hopeful that the referendums that were passed in states like MI and CO to require a non-partisan commission to draw the maps will balance things out. The fact the Democrats won control of the House under such circumstances points to a successful strategy.
-
Both sides absolutely have a history of engaging in gerrymandering. My Republican party, as the party in power in many states across the last decade, have unfortunately gerrymandered beyond the limits of normal political behavior, which has given some short term benefits to our side but there will likely be long-term costs. E.g., I suspect now that the other side has substantially more state power after last night, they will establish more fair boundaries, which will have the effect of benefiting them. The results should bear themselves out in 2022, so stay tuned.
-
First I've heard of the concept, I'm curious how would this resolve some of the current issues? And practically speaking would it be that each district has 3 reps and all 3 positions are elected each time?
I am curious about the same thing. I'm not clear what impact this change would have or how it results in better representation.
I think it is time to raise the number of Representatives, as the number was last increased more than a century ago.
-
Here: https://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/e569/pols_set5.jpg
It's gerrymandered so that the downtown (very blue) is divided among each of four districts that each include a large suburban/rural area that votes very red.
It's definitely gerrymandered, but I don't think it's as significantly gerrymandered as implied. Each district has to have as close to 711,000 voting citizens in it as possible while taking into to consideration convenience and avoiding any blatant demographic pooling.
The population of the 5 districts is then approximately 3,555,000 with Austin making up 1,000,000 of that. If I assume Austin is a 90/10 split between D/R and that the outlying areas are an 20/80 split between D/R that means in the 5 districts there are roughly 1,308,800 Dems and 2,246200 Repubs.
If you maximize the number of Dem districts (at least 370,000 Ds in a district) the max you can come up with is 3 out of 5 and the 2 other districts would be heavily Repub (leaving 99,400 Dems in each of the remaining 2 districts). If you maximize for the most competitive districts(355,500 of each party in a district) you get 3 competitive districts and 2 districts that are a 20/80 split between D/R. All of this ignores the demographic mix and/or convenience elements (though I'd say the current map is really light on "convenience" for Austin voters)
Bottom line, I think gerrymandering there has resulted in a net "steal" of 1 district for Repubs from Dems....which isn't inconsequential but it also isn't some sort of cataclysm either. This is where policy and pooling matter....you have to find ways to reduce the ratio in the outlying areas by policy positions or distribute population better so it's not pooled.
Obviously this is all illustrative and isn't intended to say gerrymandering isn't an issue but that it isn't some sort of grand cause of the issues in the body politic currently.
-
I think it is time to raise the number of Representatives, as the number was last increased more than a century ago.
Not against it, but why? So a representative needs to represent less than 711,000 citizens?
-
First I've heard of the concept, I'm curious how would this resolve some of the current issues? And practically speaking would it be that each district has 3 reps and all 3 positions are elected each time?
A primary and general election would be held every two years, with the top three in the general election heading to Congress.
-
Not against it, but why? So a representative needs to represent less than 711,000 citizens?
The number of Reps has been increased a number of times through U.S. history as the population has grown, but not since ~1912. It was done, as I understand it, to maintain proportional representation in the House. The larger states, over time, get under represented.
Texas, for example, has 1 Rep per ~800K, compared to ~625K for Vermont, ~573K for Wyoming, etc. The numbers are not drastic, but small states already get over representation in the Senate.
-
Anti-gerrymandering measures passed yesterday in Michigan, Missouri and someplace else.
-
Anti-gerrymandering measures passed yesterday in Michigan, Missouri and someplace else.
Colorado and Utah.
-
Colorado and Utah.
Thanks!
-
The number of Reps has been increased a number of times through U.S. history as the population has grown, but not since ~1912. It was done, as I understand it, to maintain proportional representation in the House. The larger states, over time, get under represented.
Texas, for example, has 1 Rep per ~800K, compared to ~625K for Vermont, ~573K for Wyoming, etc. The numbers are not drastic, but small states already get over representation in the Senate.
Makes sense to me. What has to happen to actually implement that change?
-
I struggle to understand why you think compulsory voting is going to fix this. Getting people who don't care enough to vote to actually do so doesn't seem like it would do anything.
On the contrary.... many non-voters do indeed care but do not vote because they don't support either the D or R candidates.
Why are you convinced that when the people who don't vote today are required to vote (in this alternate United States where the First Amendment no longer exists) they're going to take the time to educate themselves about poorly funded - and therefore poorly exposed - third party candidates?
Your first amendment counter is stupid... you really need to stop it. You can compel people to file taxes, you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm, and you can compel people to pay union dues... all of which are perfectly acceptable under the constitution.
I guarantee that if non-voters were a stronghold for Democrats, you and Sultan would be all over compulsory voting. If non-voters were a stronghold for Republicans, Chicos et al would be all over compulsory voting. But neither is... because you know damn well what you don't know... who non-voters are, or who they would support. It's sad that the only thing Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is that they don't want anyone else playing in their sandbox.
They'll just pick the names they heard or - as has happened in other countries - check the names at the top of the ballot.
Easy. Randomize the names at the top of the ballot.
-
On the contrary.... many non-voters do indeed care
Not enough apparently.
-
[...]
Your first amendment counter is stupid... you really need to stop it. You can compel people to file taxes, you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm, and you can compel people to pay union dues... all of which are perfectly acceptable under the constitution.
[...]
Okay, organize an amendment initiative that would allow for compelled speech in the event of compulsory voting. You may think that the undisputed state of the law is stupid, but that doesn't change the state of the law.
you can compel people to file taxes --> not speech.
you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm -->not speech.
and you can compel people to pay union dues --> but precedent suggests you can't penalize them for demanding their share of union dues not be used for political activism... which means that compulsory union dues are... wait for it... not speech.
-
Opt out voting instead of opt in. Every person who is eligible on their 18th birthday is automatically registered to vote.
-
you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm -->not speech.
Benny's point is that compelling a gun owner to register is putting parameters around a 2nd amendment right. Compelling one to vote is also putting a parameter around the 1st admendment but that alone does not render it unacceptable in the eyes of the constitution.
-
Your first amendment counter is stupid... you really need to stop it. You can compel people to file taxes, you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm, and you can compel people to pay union dues... all of which are perfectly acceptable under the constitution.
Your counter - as well as your insistence that mandatory voting is possible right now - displays a severe ignorance of the Constitution.
1. The government compels people to file taxes under the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which has been upheld on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
2. How is a license to own a gun at all similar to mandatory voting.
3. The Supreme Court earlier this year in Janus v. AFSCME said people can't be compelled to pay union dues (and, in fact, nobody is compelled to work in a union shop). Keep up.
I guarantee that if non-voters were a stronghold for Democrats, you and Sultan would be all over compulsory voting. If non-voters were a stronghold for Republicans, Chicos et al would be all over compulsory voting. But neither is... because you know damn well what you don't know... who non-voters are, or who they would support. It's sad that the only thing Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is that they don't want anyone else playing in their sandbox.
What's sad is you can't make an actual argument here to defend your position, so you make up this kind of stuff.
Again, please explain why you believe making disinterested people vote would lead to a surge in third-party voting. Otherwise, give it up.
For what it's worth, people who've actually studied this issue before declaring its likely outcome (what a concept, right?) say that:
1. It likely wouldn't favor either party
2. It wouldn't make a difference in election results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/21/obama-suggests-making-it-mandatory-to-vote-that-would-change-very-little/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.558a4ff5a024
How does randomnizing the names at the top of the ballot prevent disinterested voters from randomly picking the name at the top of the ballot?
-
Not enough apparently.
I think Benny is right to a certain extent. There is a significant pool of non-voters that don't like their bifurcated choice and so make a third choice which is simply to not participate. Oversimplification but if we put political position on two scales (plotted x-y graph) one of which is social issues (abortion, LBGT rights, poverty, etc) on a spectrum from very conservative to very liberal and the other economic (tax policy, military spending, entitlement policy, etc) also on a scale of very conservative to very liberal you end up with four quadrants:
-Sconservative + Econservative (base Republican)
-Sliberal + Eliberal (base Democrat)
-Sconservative + Eliberal
-Sliberal + Econservative
The later two quadrants are disproportionately non-voter types because they don't "see a choice" for them. Some of those two do vote because they feel much stronger about either the social or economic issues but I'm willing to bet the vast majority simply don't vote.
Obvious there is a group that is totally ambivalent but I think that group is less than half of the non-voting population.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/21/obama-suggests-making-it-mandatory-to-vote-that-would-change-very-little/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.558a4ff5a024
The hypothesis of that article is different than the hypothesis of Benny's position. The article frames mandatory voting within the construct of a two party system and assumes if compelled to vote those would be the only choices. Benny's position is that mandatory voting lowers the barriers of entry for third party candidates because turn out the vote operations which is the mainstays of the modern political parties is much different than advocating for a candidate within a monolithic voting public.
Note, I don't think mandatory voting fixes the two party system issues we have....but it's not the worst idea ever either.
-
Benny's point is that compelling a gun owner to register is putting parameters around a 2nd amendment right. Compelling one to vote is also putting a parameter around the 1st admendment but that alone does not render it unacceptable in the eyes of the constitution.
Benny can claim whatever he wants, but this is wrong and the Supreme Court has said so. It's also not analogous.
The government is not forcing anyone to engage in gun ownership, and then requiring a license to do so.
-
It's definitely gerrymandered, but I don't think it's as significantly gerrymandered as implied. Each district has to have as close to 711,000 voting citizens in it as possible while taking into to consideration convenience and avoiding any blatant demographic pooling.
The population of the 5 districts is then approximately 3,555,000 with Austin making up 1,000,000 of that. If I assume Austin is a 90/10 split between D/R and that the outlying areas are an 20/80 split between D/R that means in the 5 districts there are roughly 1,308,800 Dems and 2,246200 Repubs.
If you maximize the number of Dem districts (at least 370,000 Ds in a district) the max you can come up with is 3 out of 5 and the 2 other districts would be heavily Repub (leaving 99,400 Dems in each of the remaining 2 districts). If you maximize for the most competitive districts(355,500 of each party in a district) you get 3 competitive districts and 2 districts that are a 20/80 split between D/R. All of this ignores the demographic mix and/or convenience elements (though I'd say the current map is really light on "convenience" for Austin voters)
Bottom line, I think gerrymandering there has resulted in a net "steal" of 1 district for Repubs from Dems....which isn't inconsequential but it also isn't some sort of cataclysm either. This is where policy and pooling matter....you have to find ways to reduce the ratio in the outlying areas by policy positions or distribute population better so it's not pooled.
Obviously this is all illustrative and isn't intended to say gerrymandering isn't an issue but that it isn't some sort of grand cause of the issues in the body politic currently.
Your analysis makes a lot of assumptions that aide in proving your point. The actuality is that much of the population that is voting GOP, that is gerrymandered into these districts, more naturally fit in districts that are already represented by a GOP member.
If you divided it along rational lines, strictly based on convenience and satisfying demographic rules, the Dems would win every one of those seats (or at the very least 4 out of 5).
-
The hypothesis of that article is different than the hypothesis of Benny's position. The article frames mandatory voting within the construct of a two party system and assumes if compelled to vote those would be the only choices. Benny's position is that mandatory voting lowers the barriers of entry for third party candidates because turn out the vote operations which is the mainstays of the modern political parties is much different than advocating for a candidate within a monolithic voting public.
Cited within that article is the study linked below. Among its findings:
"Interestingly, the third parties rarely make significant gains in our estimates for 100% turnout. While this could conceivably be a function of the lower number of votes that third-party candidates garner in the first place, even in 1992 when Ross Perot received
18.5% of the votes (NES), his campaign would have benefited by only roughly a tenth of a percentage point."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31036713_A_Propensity_Score_Reweighting_Approach_to_Estimating_the_Partisan_Effects_of_Full_Turnout_in_American_Presidential_Elections
-
I think Benny is right to a certain extent. There is a significant pool of non-voters that don't like their bifurcated choice and so make a third choice which is simply to not participate.
I mean, third parties exist right now and are listed on almost every ballot. The fact that people don't choose to participate, even though some of these parties may appeal to them, means they don't care enough. I mean, I voted for a Democrat that had no chance of winning yesterday. But at least I cared enough to do it.
-
Your analysis makes a lot of assumptions that aide in proving your point. The actuality is that much of the population that is voting GOP, that is gerrymandered into these districts, more naturally fit in districts that are already represented by a GOP member.
If you divided it along rational lines, strictly based on convenience and satisfying demographic rules, the Dems would win every one of those seats (or at the very least 4 out of 5).
My assumptions are based on reality, we can quibble over the exact ratios which I'm happy to do, however no matter how you slice it when you look at the registration levels the outlying areas are greater than 70% republican and when you look at the 5 areas as a geographical whole there are more R voters than D voters....not sure how you can construct a model where you meet the population size requirement and still distribute voters so the 5 districts turn blue. You seem to indicate that we take R voters out of those districts and move them into other districts....fine, but what do you do with the population that's in that district already, it has to go somewhere else.
Bottom line, the number of districts and the population within each district is fixed. There are only so many permutations that result in a greater balance and none of them include turning all 5 districts in question blue. It's math.
-
Cited within that article is the study linked below. Among its findings:
"Interestingly, the third parties rarely make significant gains in our estimates for 100% turnout. While this could conceivably be a function of the lower number of votes that third-party candidates garner in the first place, even in 1992 when Ross Perot received
18.5% of the votes (NES), his campaign would have benefited by only roughly a tenth of a percentage point."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31036713_A_Propensity_Score_Reweighting_Approach_to_Estimating_the_Partisan_Effects_of_Full_Turnout_in_American_Presidential_Elections
Yeah I'll have to deep dive that and get back to you.
-
I mean, third parties exist right now and are listed on almost every ballot. The fact that people don't choose to participate, even though some of these parties may appeal to them, means they don't care enough. I mean, I voted for a Democrat that had no chance of winning yesterday. But at least I cared enough to do it.
And I refused to vote in the Tammy Baldwin/Leah Vukmir race yesterday because both are hot garbage IMO. (https://media.giphy.com/media/l4Kih7pkQYwWDcOPe/giphy.gif)
-
Makes sense to me. What has to happen to actually implement that change?
It appears from the article linked below it requires passage of a law. A 1929 law capped it at 435, but there were multiple increases prior to that, so I would presume the simple passage of a new law (ha ha)
https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242
-
Benny can claim whatever he wants, but this is wrong and the Supreme Court has said so. It's also not analogous.
The government is not forcing anyone to engage in gun ownership, and then requiring a license to do so.
When did the Supreme Court rule that compulsory voting is illegal? [Hint: It hasn't.]
Voting is not speech. Campaigning is speech. Protesting candidates/incumbents is speech. Donating to campaigns/PAC's is speech. But going behind a curtain and casting a ballot IN SECRET... that's not protected by the First Amendment, because it isn't speech.
Jury duty is mandatory. It is also widely considered as a constitutional duty because every American has a constitutional right to trial by jury. So why is voting not a constitutional duty? [Hint: It probably would have been if not for the fact that elections were heavily reliant upon voter suppression from Day 1 of our country.] Or more importantly, why can't voting be a constitutional duty?
For the sake of argument, I'll concede for a moment that voting is compelled speech.... how then is jury duty not considered compelled speech when you are required to deliberate and be polled?
-
When did the Supreme Court rule that compulsory voting is illegal? [Hint: It hasn't.]
Voting is not speech. Campaigning is speech. Protesting candidates/incumbents is speech. Donating to campaigns/PAC's is speech. But going behind a curtain and casting a ballot IN SECRET... that's not protected by the First Amendment, because it isn't speech.
Jury duty is mandatory. It is also widely considered as a constitutional duty because every American has a constitutional right to trial by jury. So why is voting not a constitutional duty? [Hint: It probably would have been if not for the fact that elections were heavily reliant upon voter suppression from Day 1 of our country.] Or more importantly, why can't voting be a constitutional duty?
For the sake of argument, I'll concede for a moment that voting is compelled speech.... how then is jury duty not considered compelled speech when you are required to deliberate and be polled?
Not according to currently existing jurisprudence. Start an amendment initiative. That's, literally, what it would take for you to get what you want on this one.
Maybe you're right and everyone should be lined up and forced to vote or kicked out of the republic. I'd sure love to slip free the bonds of gravity and fly to work in my Toyota. Who cares though, under the laws that currently govern both free speech and gravity, neither compulsory voting, nor Ficke's magical antigravity car are going to work.
Lucky for you, what you want actually can come to pass. Amend the Constitution.
-
Benny, serious question ...
What would the penalty be for not voting?
-
My assumptions are based on reality, we can quibble over the exact ratios which I'm happy to do, however no matter how you slice it when you look at the registration levels the outlying areas are greater than 70% republican and when you look at the 5 areas as a geographical whole there are more R voters than D voters....not sure how you can construct a model where you meet the population size requirement and still distribute voters so the 5 districts turn blue. You seem to indicate that we take R voters out of those districts and move them into other districts....fine, but what do you do with the population that's in that district already, it has to go somewhere else.
Bottom line, the number of districts and the population within each district is fixed. There are only so many permutations that result in a greater balance and none of them include turning all 5 districts in question blue. It's math.
Here is why your assumptions are not based on reality.
There are 6 districts that represent the Austin Metro area, currently 5 are GOP held. So it would total roughly 4.3 M votes. Using actual voting numbers, 51% of that population votes democratic. So the population distribution is roughly 2.19M Dem, 2.11M GOP. Your assumption/numbers are way off.
There are way more than enough votes in the democratic district (votes 71% democratic) to flip everyone of the other 5 seats.
Doing the above (splitting those votes across) to flip all 5 seats would also be gerrymandering. So, to do an accurate analysis, one has to look at neighboring districts to see what happens if you divide the populations in a manner more consistent with convenience. To do so you have to either combine districts that are right leaning moderately GOP (50-54%) with districts near Dallas that are voting either 91% democratic, 76% democratic, or 53% GOP; or districts near Houston that are voting 89% democratic, 75% democratic or 53% GOP. Doing so wouldn't flip any of those seats, but shifting them to the Austin area, flips democratic seats considerably.
These are the facts and actual numbers. Texas is gerrymandered. Your analysis involves inaccurate assumptions, and incomplete data sets (need to consider neighboring districts). When those are included it unequivocally shows the gerrymandering steals a minimum of 3 seats, that was my only point.
I'll note that what Texas did also violates federal law by intentionally grouping minority voters into singular districts.
In the interest of this not drawing out indefinitely, I'll hang up and let you have the last word.
p.s. Please do not take any of my wording as being aggressive towards you. They are not intended that way. I know you are a numbers/facts guy and I'm just trying to point out that in a detailed analysis your numbers and assumptions do not actually play out.
p.p.s. Yes my analysis is incomplete, so there are ways to poke holes into it. I leave out many details regarding neighboring districts. A complete analysis is too cumbersome for here. But Austin becomes the epicenter of a San Antonio-Houston-Dallas network of gerrymandering.
-
Dems flipped a whole bunch of House seats ... but none in heavily, heavily, heavily gerrymandered NC.
NC Republicans running for U.S. House seats won 50.3% of the vote ... but won 10 of the 13 seats.
That is not democracy. (And it wouldn't be if it similarly favored the Dems.)
-
Benny, serious question ...
What would the penalty be for not voting?
Death, obviously. Probably drawing and quartering. Something gruesome. That way it won't happen again. Plus it will serve as warning to others.
-
Here is why your assumptions are not based on reality.
There are 6 districts that represent the Austin Metro area, currently 5 are GOP held. So it would total roughly 4.3 M votes. Using actual voting numbers, 51% of that population votes democratic. So the population distribution is roughly 2.19M Dem, 2.11M GOP. Your assumption/numbers are way off.
There are way more than enough votes in the democratic district (votes 71% democratic) to flip everyone of the other 5 seats.
Doing the above (splitting those votes across) to flip all 5 seats would also be gerrymandering. So, to do an accurate analysis, one has to look at neighboring districts to see what happens if you divide the populations in a manner more consistent with convenience. To do so you have to either combine districts that are right leaning moderately GOP (50-54%) with districts near Dallas that are voting either 91% democratic, 76% democratic, or 53% GOP; or districts near Houston that are voting 89% democratic, 75% democratic or 53% GOP. Doing so wouldn't flip any of those seats, but shifting them to the Austin area, flips democratic seats considerably.
These are the facts and actual numbers. Texas is gerrymandered. Your analysis involves inaccurate assumptions, and incomplete data sets (need to consider neighboring districts). When those are included it unequivocally shows the gerrymandering steals a minimum of 3 seats, that was my only point.
I'll note that what Texas did also violates federal law by intentionally grouping minority voters into singular districts.
In the interest of this not drawing out indefinitely, I'll hang up and let you have the last word.
p.s. Please do not take any of my wording as being aggressive towards you. They are not intended that way. I know you are a numbers/facts guy and I'm just trying to point out that in a detailed analysis your numbers and assumptions do not actually play out.
p.p.s. Yes my analysis is incomplete, so there are ways to poke holes into it. I leave out many details regarding neighboring districts. A complete analysis is too cumbersome for here. But Austin becomes the epicenter of a San Antonio-Houston-Dallas network of gerrymandering.
This is really interesting stuff and obviously my initial analysis is off based on assumptions that aren't true (mind boggling no one sued over this districting because 5 out of 6 with a roughly 50/50 political split is insane). Very much intrigued and my try and grab some numbers from those districts to cement or refute my hypothesis....good stuff, thanks.
-
Dems flipped a whole bunch of House seats ... but none in heavily, heavily, heavily gerrymandered NC.
NC Republicans running for U.S. House seats won 50.3% of the vote ... but won 10 of the 13 seats.
That is not democracy. (And it wouldn't be if it similarly favored the Dems.)
A perfect example as to why many people don't care when it comes to voting. Here is another:
Less than 24 hours after Tony Evers was elected governor, the Republican leader of the state Assembly threatened to take power away from him even before he is sworn in. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said Wednesday he would discuss whether to look at limiting Evers' power with Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). FItzgerald is open to the idea, according to an aide. "If there are areas where we could look and say, 'Geez — have we made mistakes where we granted too much power to the executive,' I'd be open to taking a look to say what can we do to change that to try to re-balance it," Vos told reporters.
"Maybe we made some mistakes giving too much power to Gov. (Scott) Walker and I'd be open to looking at that to see if there are areas we should change that, but it's far too early to do that before I talk to Scott Fitzgerald."
Fitzgerald is willing to consider taking away some of the governor’s powers before Evers is seated, said his chief of staff, Dan Romportl.
Less than 24 hours to subvert the election results - why even bother to vote?
-
Hah, this is the first time I've clicked on this thread. I guess I should have guessed it was political.
Hope it was fun at least!