Millennial Non-Voters

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

[jesmu84]

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).

[jesmu84]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[mu03eng]

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.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Doesn't California do open primaries or something similar?

[Jockey]

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

[MU82]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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?

[mu03eng]

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.

[MU82]

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!!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Some say it does. 

ChicosBothSides at his finest.

[Lennys Tap]

You said earlier you were a Democrat, did you switch parties?

Says the switcher-in-chief. LOL

[WarriorDad]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

[SaveOD238]

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.