SCOTUS on Gerrymander

[uppi]

All your questions here bring up the problem of subjective justice. It makes it almost impossible to believe there is a way to handle this appropriately. I feel certain that is the argument the conservative SCOTUS is about to make and therefore we have to live with this vastly inferior system that subjugates a huge population in many states to the will of a minority consistently.

Well, subjugating a huge population by a minority only works as long as the people let themselves be subjugated. Which is why it is so important to point out how outdated the US political system is and that it has to be improved. If you get enough support for that position, there will be change some day. Probably later than sooner, though.

I don't like judges legislating from the bench, because it is not the job of the judges to do the job of the politicians. Especially since judge selection in a democracy is always a somewhat dubious process. If SCOTUS finds that it is not their duties to make up the rules, then I would reluctantly agree and say that you need to make these changes politically. If they go further (as speculated in the article linked in the OP), expose themselves as total hypocrites, and rule that all other options than the legislators choosing their own voters are illegal, then democracy in the USA is dead.

I think we shouldn't be trying to engineer the results we want so much as come up with a system that is just. What is just being a touch question for me personally. I like the idea of open primaries and nice looking districts. It seems less arbitrary and more likely to produce less violent swings to the left or right in any given election. I'm open to ranked voting or whatever its called but I'm not sure it plays out any differently than FPTP systems in our two party system.

With FPTP being inherently unjust, trying to balance it out by districting will always result in someone being treated unfairly. Open primaries or ranked voting would mitigate the worst effects, but districting would still play a major role. Of course, it would take some time until your political system would evolve from a two-party system into a few-party system, but you need to change the voting system first, before you will see any effect on the political system.

@uppi FTPT = ????

FPTP (did I type FTPT anywhere?) = First past the post. It is the system where whoever receives a plurality in a district gets the seat, even if a majority of the voters deeply despise them. It is bad, because it heavily punished trying to break out of a two-party system and by engineering the districts you have a larger impact on the result than the voting itself.

Lots of side-eying at the Senate too, even though many of the states rival the members of the quasi-confederation. Which you can see the tension of played out in discussions regarding sovereignty and the EU. Brexit, whatnot.

Nah, the Senate is mostly fine. It is not perfect, but it seems to be the least broken part of the US political system right now. There are federal states in Europe as well and they all have some Senate-like institutions. As a smug European, I am required to point out that our versions are better of course, but we know and appreciate the concept.

As Farm Boy said: Single-representative districts in which the first candidate to cross a threshold (50% OR a plurality of votes, depending on the rules) wins everything.

I would define FPTP strictly as plurality wins. If a majority is required, you need some mechanism for when no one achieves a majority (runoff election, ranked voting, etc.) and that can change voting behavior so much that it doesn't really make sense to characterize it as FPTP.

 

[Farm Boy]

The alternative, of course, are systems that enshrine party loyalty and government by party in the governing process to an even greater degree. Which, of course, ideologues and partisans tend to be fine with and despise the downplay of. For the most part.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@uppi Perhaps the typo was mine? I didn't know you were European. Where in Europe?

 

[Estebonrober]

The alternative, of course, are systems that enshrine party loyalty and government by party in the governing process to an even greater degree. Which, of course, ideologues and partisans tend to be fine with and despise the downplay of. For the most part.

Can you elaborate on that comment? what systems makes this worse?

 

[uppi]

The alternative, of course, are systems that enshrine party loyalty and government by party in the governing process to an even greater degree. Which, of course, ideologues and partisans tend to be fine with and despise the downplay of. For the most part.

Only if you go fully list-based seat assignment. Which isn't the only alternative by far.

I didn't know you were European. Where in Europe?

Bavaria, Germany.

 

[uppi]

Can you elaborate on that comment? what systems makes this worse?

There is list-based proportional representation. Which means that each party agrees on a list of candidates and you can vote for which list you like most. The seats are then awarded proportionally to the fraction of votes each party got and are filled starting from the top of the list. Since the party has full control over the list and those with the top spots are almost guaranteed to get a seat, the party can and will reward loyal party members with the top spots.If you go against the party line you may see yourself at the bottom of the list in the next elections (or not on it at all) with no (realistic) chance to a seat.

 

[schlaufuchs]

The alternative, of course, are systems that enshrine party loyalty and government by party in the governing process to an even greater degree. Which, of course, ideologues and partisans tend to be fine with and despise the downplay of. For the most part.

There's also Mixed-Member Proportional Voting or AV+ or STV, which all achieve greater proportionality, avoid the spoiler effect, and still let you vote for individual representatives.

Also, of course, party loyalty and government by part is the norm here too. It isn't something avoided by FPTP systems, in fact FPTP trends towards a strong 2-party system.

 

[Farm Boy]

Indeed, yet nothing you said is incompatible with the statement you quote.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Indeed, yet nothing you said is incompatible with the statement you quote.

1) Not all of the alternative voting methods I listed do that. Notably STV doesn't necessitate any kind of party presence whatsoever.
2) Is the distinction between de iure and de facto outcomes a meaningful one here? FPTP may not legally necessitate the existence of strong parties with an emphasis on party loyalty over individual politics, but when the system invariably results in the same, isn't that just drawing a distinction without a difference? The objective in an electoral system is to represent the interests and political beliefs of the populace as accurately and realistically as possible. FPTP is undeniably bad at doing that.

 

[Arwon]

There's also some conflation of single member districts with first-past-the-post occurring here.

Australia has the former without the latter. Americans call it instant runoff voting, the British called it "alternative vote" when they stuffed up its implementation.

Singapore has some seats with the latter without the former. They have some multiple member districts, but where first past the post is used to determine a team of winners elected as a single group. It's... not designed to be fair or democratic.

 

[Arwon]

The alternative, of course, are systems that enshrine party loyalty and government by party in the governing process to an even greater degree. Which, of course, ideologues and partisans tend to be fine with and despise the downplay of. For the most part.

The Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, the unicameral parliament of my local state-equivalent government, is elected by Single Transferrable Vote. It's a system where we vote for individuals, not party lists. The names on the ballots are in a random order for each vote, which means there's no obvious hierarchy of candidates within each party. It means members of the same party compete against each other for votes and seats, as much as they are also trying to expand the party's vote share. Pretty much every election here and in Tasmania with the same system, low profile or unpopular members of the major parties are directly replaced by the personal support vote built up by better candidates running from that same party.

There are also systems which combine party list proportionality with local single member representation, such as the MMP system used in Germany and New Zealand. Everyone has a local member, but the systems ensure the overall balance of the legislature is proportional and representative of the overall popular will by adding party list candidates as well.

In New Zealand there's even a set of Māori single member electorates co-existing with the regular single member electorate (Māori voters choose which to enroll in), ensuring that the originally colonised people actually retain political power and have a specific democratic voice. There's not too many other settler colonial societies which have managed to actually combine electoral democracy with a decent measure of first nation sovereignty. This can only be seen as a significant failing on the part of our two respective democracies.

More things in heaven and earth, yo.

 

[Naskra]

In the US, we won't keep honest voter rolls, can't count the votes anyway, and won't accept the results. And half the people don't vote. Sophisticated electoral systems are no help for that.

 

[Arwon]

In the US, we won't keep honest voter rolls, can't count the votes anyway, and won't accept the results. And half the people don't vote. Sophisticated electoral systems are no help for that.

Yeah I mean "get a proper independent and rules-based civil service" does seem to be a root part of solving many problems over there.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's all tradeoffs, true Owen. I do find de jure, as you put it, party rule offensive, for what it's worth. Not a massive fan of the mainstream ideologies either. But I'm not particularly interested in the argument. Had it before with these fine, fine individuals.

 

[onejayhawk]

While the math nerd in me can relate to the reality of this comment, the political nerd is more interested in how we can get close enough that it doesn't seem like the gerrymandering is more important than the votes in the first place. IE the voters are choosing their representative and not the other way around. I'm open to trying dramatically different ways of voting to get closer to actual representation, but that's probably fraught with bad implications. How long do you try something before moving on? Can you just use simulation to find something close to truly effective for our sense of justice on this topic?

The math nerd should recognize that gerrymandering is typically a temporary fix.

There are exceptions, but the basic idea is to create a large number of districts with about a 55-45 party split for yourself and 85-15 districts for your opponent. Simple demographic shift tends to erase the original intent, often reversing the result. Only the latter version tend to stay firmly single party, giving your opponent unassailable districts to use as their base.

J

 

[Estebonrober]

The math nerd should recognize that gerrymandering is typically a temporary fix.

There are exceptions, but the basic idea is to create a large number of districts with about a 55-45 party split for yourself and 85-15 districts for your opponent. Simple demographic shift tends to erase the original intent, often reversing the result. Only the latter version tend to stay firmly single party, giving your opponent unassailable districts to use as their base.

J

Um what? Care to explain this point further? All I'm getting is the explainer on how republicans rigged some districts in 2010, which I was aware of.

 

[Zardnaar]

Um what? Care to explain this point further? All I'm getting is the explainer on how republicans rigged some districts in 2010, which I was aware of.

Basically right now the Republicans have gerrymandered extensively. Assuming they don't get fixed it buys them a few years but apparently by 2030 or so it won't matter. Put simply the Republicans did an internal survey in the aftermath of 2012 recommendation was to become more liberal on things like immigration and minorities. By 2032 Texas is projected to go purple/blue and won't be the only red state. Trump may have accelerated that process. If the Republicans lose Gerrymandered districts recapturing them become that much harder and something like a 7% advantage to the Democrats overcomes gerrymandering in a lot of states except for deep red enclaves.

Older Republican voters die off+ America is getting more liberal overall. Trumps probably lost 2020 already and unless you are a pumpkin US presidents tend to win 2 terms. If the Dems win in 2020 in 2028 Republicans are up the proverbial creek without a paddle and its basically all over for them by 2032. USA is basically a mono party then (unless Dems split or Republicans reform or something else changes).

We used to have FPTP here but they elected to change in in 1993 and populate vote matters since 1996.

Even under the old FPTP though the electorates were all similar in size, the politicians could not draw the boundaries and the boundaries would change based on population changes. Here if you won under FPTP you also won the popular vote the reason they changed it was some of the smaller parties were getting up to 20% of the vote and getting no seats or maybe a couple.

Now we have the big 2 political parties and 2-3 smaller ones that matter (basically can win 5% of the vote or there about).

 

[Hehehe]

There is some truth to this and it is a primary concern for me, but I should point out that I think gerrymandering is a primary part of this fracturing. It is rotting the foundation of representative government and the scale to which it is being instituted is I believe threatening to the republic. The other fracturing seems to be cultural and I'm even less hopeful on how to bring that together.

Well, I tend to see it as a symptom rather than the disease, but to each his own.

"US is Rome." I've been hearing that since the Cold War ended. Dad's been hearing it since 'nam. This is nothing on the 60s and 70s. But why would you know that? Why would you believe me? Everyone rediscovers everything new and it's never been before. Hysterics ensue.

Yes, in the past, stuff has happened and nothing came out of it. Sometimes, in the past, stuff has happened and something actually did come out of it. I believe that with the times we're living in, this is a case of the latter. However, in a lot of ways I agree with the gist of what you say. In my opinion, a lot of people have taken a kind of unhealthy interest in politics.

Put simply the Republicans did an internal survey in the aftermath of 2012 recommendation was to become more liberal on things like immigration and minorities.

This, in my opinion, captures the absolute stupidity of Republicans. Republicans are never going to win the minority vote unless they go to the left of Democrats, something which is impossible for them and would never work. So why try? They should appeal to their core constituency, white people, and limit immigration (limiting immigration is a lot more popular than many people realize). Then again, none of that matters anymore, as the demographics favor Democrats so much so that it's game over for Republicans. Even if all immigration to the United States were going to stop (which it won't), the future would still look very bleak for Republicans. Trump taking a stand against immigration makes a lot of sense, but even if Trump were to get his stupid wall, it wouldn't matter. As soon as they can, Democrats are simply going to open the border and pass amnesty

 

[Estebonrober]

This, in my opinion, captures the absolute stupidity of Republicans. Republicans are never going to win the minority vote unless they go to the left of Democrats, something which is impossible for them and would never work. So why try? They should appeal to their core constituency, white people, and limit immigration (limiting immigration is a lot more popular than many people realize). Then again, none of that matters anymore, as the demographics favor Democrats so much so that it's game over for Republicans. Even if all immigration to the United States were going to stop (which it won't), the future would still look very bleak for Republicans. Trump taking a stand against immigration makes a lot of sense, but even if Trump were to get his stupid wall, it wouldn't matter. As soon as they can, Democrats are simply going to open the border and pass amnesty

The USA without immigration faces a such a worker shortage it is unimaginable.

So does Finland. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping your country stays like it was is not realistic.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/...inlands_shrinking_working-age_cohort/10512068

 

[Hehehe]

The USA without immigration faces a such a worker shortage it is unimaginable.

So does Finland. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping your country stays like it was is not realistic.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/...inlands_shrinking_working-age_cohort/10512068

Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Immigration is a broad topic, and immigrants from 1st world countries are generally a net benefit for the economy, but that's not the immigration we're seeing. The general Finnish unemployment rate hovers around 9%. A lot of our own citizens can't find work. Importing more people in this situation simply increases competition in the labor market, and put downward pressure on wages. I mean how can some illiterate goat herder from Somalia find meaningful employment, if even native Finns cannot? The end result is that a lot of these immigrants end up on welfare (by necessity) which makes them a net drain on the Finnish economy. It also puts financial pressure on those welfare systems, which means that there's increasing amount of pressure to reduce welfare at a time when people need it the most. This is also the reason why many "populist" anti-immigration voters come from parties that have traditionally represented the working class (the working class is hurt the most by low skill immigration). Immigration would be a silver bullet if we could attract more skilled immigrants, but low skilled immigrants just make the situation worse. Generous welfare and open borders are a combination that simply does not work.

But I suppose that's enough about Finland, I don't want to derail your thread about gerrymandering.