Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Then enlighten me as to what you were actually saying. Because it *looks* like you're handwaving the incumbency rate and saying that it's not the fault of redistricting/gerrymandering.

Bestow your wisdom on an unwashed prole like myself.

Because, oh unwashed prole, saying that incumbency rates aren't a good metric of gerrymandering is different from saying that people are voluntarily gerrymandering themselves.  The first is what I said.  The second is you putting words in my mouth.

[RedKing]

Then enlighten me as to what you were actually saying. Because it *looks* like you're handwaving the incumbency rate and saying that it's not the fault of redistricting/gerrymandering.

Bestow your wisdom on an unwashed prole like myself.

Because, oh unwashed prole, saying that incumbency rates aren't a good metric of gerrymandering is different from saying that people are voluntarily gerrymandering themselves.  The first is what I said.  The second is you putting words in my mouth.

No, I was offering that up as the sarcastic explanation of how you have can incumbency rates that high if gerrymandering isn't to blame. Because I don't really see any other explanation. Either Congresscritters get back in because:
1) They actually *are* politically representative of their districts, or
2) Their districts have been handcrafted to be politically favorable to them.

The first is not altogether implausible in many places (Berkeley, CA is going to elect a Democrat because it's a liberal bastion; Bumfuckburg, Oklahoma is going to elect a Republican because Democrats are legally classified "game animals" there) but 90% of the places??

The core problem with American politics (especially on the left hand side) is that while people like myself, MSH and Frumple smell something rotten in the state of Denmark...the Democratic (and largely the Republican) establishment is being largely a Danish Febreeze salesman, offering incremental fixes to "cover up" the worst offenses. And then people like you are the hipsters saying "it's *supposed* to smell this way, like a fine Limburger or imported natto. It's an acquired taste."

[Reelya]

One argument for gerrymandering which I've heard is that "fair" districtswould dilute minority votes, causing them to be unable to elect anyone to actually represent them.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I think that's a good argument, or a bad argument.

That's more of a case for Mixed-Member Proportional voting. The idea with that is that if your regional candidate doesn't win, your vote goes towards a pool of extra party-based candidates. The final legislature therefore has two features: each district is represented by the most popular candidate from that region, and the entire legislature proportionally represents the voters. So if a party loses with 5% of the vote, they get additional members to bring their legislature total up to 5% of the representatives. It's used in several countries.

MMP could be combined with either FPTP or IRV voting, but care would have to be taken to make sure it all meshes in a way that best reflects the voter's intentions. My view would be that each district's candidate is chosen by IRV voting, since that best reflects the wishes of the majority in each district, but only the first-choice of each voter is considered when adding extra members for party-proportionality.

[mainiac]

Because I don't really see any other explanation.

My humble services are at your disposal, honored sir:

If a lot of people like candidate X in year T, it's likely that a lot of people like candidate X in year T+2.  Note that this is equally true for districts that are gerrymandered and not gerrymandered.

[penguinofhonor]

How did MSH get on the righteous list after making a long argument in defense of gerrymandering specifically because it contributes to America's political system moving slowly? I think you're trying too hard to sort people into teams.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How did MSH get on the righteous list after making a long argument in defense of gerrymandering specifically because it contributes to America's political system moving slowly? I think you're trying too hard to sort people into teams.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Frumple]

@poh: ... and I actually generally think maniac's fairly on point with their points, if often (more than) a tad too confrontational about it (which is really seeming to mess with some folks interpretations of their posts, tbh). Critter largely seems on the general side of folks that smell something rotten, just is paying attention to other smells and more than a bit frustrated with certain sorts of rhetoric/communication styles (that I'm mostly okay with, heh).

Also incremental fixes are good, too! Sure, better is better, but some better is more than none better, perfect vs. good, yadda yadda yadda. You don't stop aiming for the bigger/future victory, but you also don't shoot yourself in the foot vis a vis victories in the now. Just 'cause I don't think we're in a good spot regarding the environment doesn't mean I don't recognize that Obama's actually done some pretty damn important things on that front, and so on, and so forth.

[mainiac]

If I'm a tad confrontational what is Redking being right now?

[darkrider2]

To me, it seems that a better metric for looking at the consequences of gerrymandering isn't the incumbency rate, but the degree for which the candidate won. It's harder to explain 90% landslides compared to 90% incumbency, especially in situations of low favorability ratings.

[mainiac]

To me, it seems that a better metric for looking at the consequences of gerrymandering isn't the incumbency rate, but the degree for which the candidate won. It's harder to explain 90% landslides compared to 90% incumbency, especially in situations of low favorability ratings.

[Frumple]

Also confrontational, but somewhat less tersely?

[Orange Wizard]

It's used in several countries.

Yeah, most use a straight-up proportional vote or FPTP. There's something like 5 that use an MMP system, NZ and Germany are the only ones I can think of.

...

As an aside, what do the Americans here think of the Constitution? Do you think it should be adjusted as time goes on, or should it be treated as immutable?

[Reelya]

Because I don't really see any other explanation.

My humble services are at your disposal, honored sir:

If a lot of people like candidate X in year T, it's likely that a lot of people like candidate X in year T+2.  Note that this is equally true for districts that are gerrymandered and not gerrymandered.

To me, it seems that a better metric for looking at the consequences of gerrymandering isn't the incumbency rate, but the degree for which the candidate won. It's harder to explain 90% landslides compared to 90% incumbency, especially in situations of low favorability ratings.

Landslides aren't necessarily a good sign of who is responsible for gerrymandering. The normal way is to sacrifice a few seats to the other guys (as dense as you can pack them), whereas you want to spread your own guys out as a majority in as many seats as possible. Therefore the culprits will likely win more seats, but by lower margins than the party which is the victim of gerrymandering.

[TheBiggerFish]

It's used in several countries.

Yeah, most use a straight-up proportional vote or FPTP. There's something like 5 that use an MMP system, NZ and Germany are the only ones I can think of.

...

As an aside, what do the Americans here think of the Constitution? Do you think it should be adjusted as time goes on, or should it be treated as immutable?

Dude.

The Bill of Rights are amendments.


The Constitution should be amended from time to time, yes.

[Lord Shonus]

As an aside, what do the Americans here think of the Constitution? Do you think it should be adjusted as time goes on, or should it be treated as immutable?

It's been adjusted seventeen times (the first ten amendments were ratified with the original document by most states, and were more of a "we all agree we need this section, but we keep quibbling over the details, let's send out the first part while we dicker" deal than deliberate change), most recently in 1992. It is deliberately difficult to alter it because it needs to be insulated from political fads, but it includes a mechanism for alteration.

That said, if you actually read the thing, most of it is organizational - setting up how each branch functions, what the areas of responsibility are, how a branch can get smacked down if it gets out of line, etc - with a "these are the fundamental rights that we recognize every person possess and are setting aside for protection" added on. Most of the stuff people bitch about (for example, it doesn't mandate simple majority vote (or any other system) be used) isn't in there.