Millennial Non-Voters

[Babybluejeans]

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."

[mu03eng]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[jesmu84]

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?

[brewcity77]

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.

[mu03eng]

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]

[tower912]

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.   

[MU82]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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

[GGGG]

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.

[MU82]

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?

[mu03eng]

But the methods being used are more extreme now.

Could you expand on this?

[StillAWarrior]

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          |
|                        |
|                        |
--------------------

[mu03eng]

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/10/the-big-sort-revisited/504830/

Relevant article of the "self gerrymandering" that is going on.

[GGGG]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Babybluejeans]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.