"But I believe, because of redistricting, and the power of Republican-held state houses and legislatures, the will of the people will emerge."
The will of the people drawing the districts will emerge over those voters in the districts. That's the ENTIRE POINT of gerrymandering. Otherwise, we could have saner districts (and I speak from Chicago, where the Democrats have doodled significantly) that are competitive and the will of the people can actually be discerned in races that aren't predetermined by splitting and lumping voters together for a predictable outcome.
As for getting the election deniers out of power, there's no reason to NOT start doing this now in the election several weeks ahead. If given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican election denier - vote Democrat. If given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican that respects elections, vote for the Republican if you think that Democrats are such a danger. This flirting with election denialism needs to be put down fast and it needs to be put down hard, so that in 2024 and beyond no serious candidate seeking power will touch that third rail.
As for the filibuster, Democrats have had two years of power to do away with it and we still have it. Aside from the vocal looneys, I don't see them doing away with it in the next two years should they retain power. Happy to turn that prediction into a "loser donates to the winner's charity of choice" wager if you want to take the other end of that bet.
As a frequent third-party voter, I have no objection then.
That said, in my own personal calculus, even if I disagreed with the Democrat on everything except for their stances on elections, they're getting my vote, if only to run up the numbers against the election denier to do my part to help electrify that third rail.
This just might be your dumbest column ever; EVER. Gerrymandering is a good thing, how about dark money? Billions poured into campaigns with no checks and balances? That a good thing too?
Good God Steve (cool, i can cloak myself in God too), how in the world is it a good thing for politicians to carve out safe districts with ridiculous boundaries that make districts look like jig saw puzzle pieces? Oh wait, you gave us your answer, our side will win that way.
Give your head a shake. It's yet another reason the side show, shit show will just keep on coming. Hoo freaking yay for our side. Winning at any cost, the new American way.
Dark money and all that are an entirely different problem than gerrymandering. And I’m not talking about purely racist disenfranchisement here. The courts do deal with that when it comes before them (and inevitably it does). The states have control over districts. If that’s lunacy then come up with a system that is proven to work better.
Ranked choice voting, to ensure that the winning candidate receives 50+% of votes
Put a reasonable cap on number of constituents per Representative (50-100k?), which requires...
Expanding the House for more representative representation (side-benefit is more elected officials means more oversight capabilities of the bureaucracy)
Require that districts "make sense" re contiguity and the like
It may also be best if we stopped voting for individual candidates and instead voted for parties, with both proportional apportionment of seats and party assignment of a local representative. One of the galling things about gerrymandering is when one party wins a majority of the vote but gets a minority of the seats (on either side of the aisle).
I am not a fan of ranked choice, as it subverts the authority and responsibility of the parties to perform candidate vetting and hygiene. I prefer Georgia’s method of primary and general election runoffs if no candidate receives 50% + 1 vote of the total.
As for apportionment, that is handled in the Constitution and by federal law. The number of reps is determined by census and states are required to equally apportion representation. This is why 11 of New York’s 27 representative districts are for NYC itself and another 6 for Long Island and metro NYC, leaving 10 for the rest of the state.
The number of Reps is set by a federal law passed in 1929 and can be changed in the same way. Many have lobbied for a 500 Rep House, which I would support. Apportionment formula was last set by Congress in 1941 and should also be revisited.
I abhor voting for parties e.g. England. That smacks of a parliamentary system where government by seats and coalition rules. It fairly eliminates the concept of ticket splitting and again subverts party responsibility for vetting individual candidates. It also eliminates the appeal of third parties and independent candidates.
I’d love to overhaul ballot access laws, and put in place mandatory matching for non party candidates where $x per dollar must be set aside by campaigns and PACs to fund the indies.
Why increase the number of politicians? Why not increase the number of citizens represented by a House Rep to about 1,000,000? That way the districts would be large enough to make blatant Gerrymandering stick out like a sore thumb.
I disagree that it somehow subverts party authority/vetting responsibility: direct election of candidates via the primary is frankly far more of an issue to parties selecting the best candidate. If necessary the parties can have a rule (if they don't already) stating that only the declared party candidate can be listed as such on the ballot.
You may need to break down the issue you have with voting for a party as opposed to an individual candidate, at least for national office. Coalitions do exist, either in terms of independents caucusing with one party or the other or if we consider the parties themselves as coalitions between disparate interest groups.
"But I believe, because of redistricting, and the power of Republican-held state houses and legislatures, the will of the people will emerge."
The will of the people drawing the districts will emerge over those voters in the districts. That's the ENTIRE POINT of gerrymandering. Otherwise, we could have saner districts (and I speak from Chicago, where the Democrats have doodled significantly) that are competitive and the will of the people can actually be discerned in races that aren't predetermined by splitting and lumping voters together for a predictable outcome.
As for getting the election deniers out of power, there's no reason to NOT start doing this now in the election several weeks ahead. If given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican election denier - vote Democrat. If given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican that respects elections, vote for the Republican if you think that Democrats are such a danger. This flirting with election denialism needs to be put down fast and it needs to be put down hard, so that in 2024 and beyond no serious candidate seeking power will touch that third rail.
As for the filibuster, Democrats have had two years of power to do away with it and we still have it. Aside from the vocal looneys, I don't see them doing away with it in the next two years should they retain power. Happy to turn that prediction into a "loser donates to the winner's charity of choice" wager if you want to take the other end of that bet.
An election denier won’t get my vote. But neither will a Democrat who wants to end the filibuster or expand SCOTUS to fit their political interests.
As a frequent third-party voter, I have no objection then.
That said, in my own personal calculus, even if I disagreed with the Democrat on everything except for their stances on elections, they're getting my vote, if only to run up the numbers against the election denier to do my part to help electrify that third rail.
So does that mean you won't vote for Hershel? Last time i checked he still claimed Biden wasn't the winner.
This just might be your dumbest column ever; EVER. Gerrymandering is a good thing, how about dark money? Billions poured into campaigns with no checks and balances? That a good thing too?
Good God Steve (cool, i can cloak myself in God too), how in the world is it a good thing for politicians to carve out safe districts with ridiculous boundaries that make districts look like jig saw puzzle pieces? Oh wait, you gave us your answer, our side will win that way.
Give your head a shake. It's yet another reason the side show, shit show will just keep on coming. Hoo freaking yay for our side. Winning at any cost, the new American way.
Dark money and all that are an entirely different problem than gerrymandering. And I’m not talking about purely racist disenfranchisement here. The courts do deal with that when it comes before them (and inevitably it does). The states have control over districts. If that’s lunacy then come up with a system that is proven to work better.
My thoughts on that:
Ranked choice voting, to ensure that the winning candidate receives 50+% of votes
Put a reasonable cap on number of constituents per Representative (50-100k?), which requires...
Expanding the House for more representative representation (side-benefit is more elected officials means more oversight capabilities of the bureaucracy)
Require that districts "make sense" re contiguity and the like
It may also be best if we stopped voting for individual candidates and instead voted for parties, with both proportional apportionment of seats and party assignment of a local representative. One of the galling things about gerrymandering is when one party wins a majority of the vote but gets a minority of the seats (on either side of the aisle).
I am not a fan of ranked choice, as it subverts the authority and responsibility of the parties to perform candidate vetting and hygiene. I prefer Georgia’s method of primary and general election runoffs if no candidate receives 50% + 1 vote of the total.
As for apportionment, that is handled in the Constitution and by federal law. The number of reps is determined by census and states are required to equally apportion representation. This is why 11 of New York’s 27 representative districts are for NYC itself and another 6 for Long Island and metro NYC, leaving 10 for the rest of the state.
The number of Reps is set by a federal law passed in 1929 and can be changed in the same way. Many have lobbied for a 500 Rep House, which I would support. Apportionment formula was last set by Congress in 1941 and should also be revisited.
I abhor voting for parties e.g. England. That smacks of a parliamentary system where government by seats and coalition rules. It fairly eliminates the concept of ticket splitting and again subverts party responsibility for vetting individual candidates. It also eliminates the appeal of third parties and independent candidates.
I’d love to overhaul ballot access laws, and put in place mandatory matching for non party candidates where $x per dollar must be set aside by campaigns and PACs to fund the indies.
Why increase the number of politicians? Why not increase the number of citizens represented by a House Rep to about 1,000,000? That way the districts would be large enough to make blatant Gerrymandering stick out like a sore thumb.
So reduce the size of the House to 350? That’s about as small as it could get and be functional.
I like it. The only drawback is the states that get only one Rep will become slightly more influential.
I disagree that it somehow subverts party authority/vetting responsibility: direct election of candidates via the primary is frankly far more of an issue to parties selecting the best candidate. If necessary the parties can have a rule (if they don't already) stating that only the declared party candidate can be listed as such on the ballot.
You may need to break down the issue you have with voting for a party as opposed to an individual candidate, at least for national office. Coalitions do exist, either in terms of independents caucusing with one party or the other or if we consider the parties themselves as coalitions between disparate interest groups.
So that's why politicians gerrymander seats, - so the will of the people will emerge. Thank God for selfless, altruistic, public spirited politicians.