[Politics]Gerrymandering the cases and their impact on the 2020 elections.

[Abomination]

I agree gerrymandering is a bad thing, and those who have legalised it or attempt to redraw electoral boundaries for their advantage should be hung by piano wire from a nearby lamp post.

Would piano wire be able to hold up an entire body?

Thankfully a piano has many wires, they'll find the correct ratio eventually.

 

[Pseudonym]

Do you live in a nation that uses a better system than this to prevent gerrymandering and how does it work?

Where I live whichever party gets x% of the votes nationwide gets x% of seats in parliament (as long as x>.67). If an individual lower on the list of a party gets 75% of the votes required for a seat (s)he gets one automatically as long as the party has seats to spare. This has downsides too, such as the high amount of party-discipline and difficulty with forming effective and popular coalitions but I massively prefer it to the district system. It avoids gerrymandering and counts nearly every vote instead of discounting 40% by default.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Do you live in a nation that uses a better system than this to prevent gerrymandering and how does it work?

Where I live whichever party gets x% of the votes nationwide gets x% of seats in parliament (as long as x>.67). If an individual lower on the list of a party gets 75% of the votes required for a seat (s)he gets one automatically as long as the party has seats to spare. This has downsides too, such as the high amount of party-discipline and difficulty with forming effective and popular coalitions but I massively prefer it to the district system. It avoids gerrymandering and counts nearly every vote instead of discounting 40% by default.

I would prefer that to what we have here for sure. Many people no longer even vote here because they know their vote doesn't count. Having a system where your vote actually does count makes all the difference in the world in terms of voter turnout.

 

[tstorm823]

The biggest problem with your argument is simply that gerrymandering keeps working. It's simply not credible that parties are too stupid to tack to the centre for close seats. Not least because we already know they do: Republicans in traditionally Democrat seats and Democrats in traditionally Republican seats are significantly less loyal to party lines, because they have to be to keep their seats.

Let me speak anecdotally about everything you're saying. Here I sit in the heart of Pennsylvania, a state that just had the courts take the map away from the state legislature because of fear of partisan gerrymandering causing problems. I would be surprised if you hadn't heard something about the change in PA's map after the Democratic gains in the midterm, but it's my local news here.

And while the national headlines beforehand would tell you things like this [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/upshot/pennsylvania-new-house-districts-gerrymandering.html], and after the election would tell you things like this [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/09/one-state-fixed-its-gerrymandered-districts-other-didnt-heres-how-election-played-out-both/?utm_term=.6b661eaf3d7f], what they didn't mention was things like this [https://www.witf.org/news/2019/01/analysis-pa-dems-may-have-made-gains-under-old-congressional-map.php]. They national media loves the narrative of Republicans cheating their way in to power while the local public radio affiliate says "well, they did the math, and it turns out there's the exact same party split there would have been with the old districts." Turns out that Democrats faired better in Pennsylvania than in North Carolina because Democrats just actually did gained voters here.

So the question of "did the gerrymander work?" I can't say that it did anything. We swapped a map of districts that largely followed the highway corridors to a map with blockier districts, and the representation for the state is the same party split as it would have been.

But this is difficult in a national election.

You don't just take the centre and win. Sounding more and more like your opponents loses the support and enthuasiasm of your base. You gain voters in one way, but lose them in another. Swing 2% of voters who might support the opposition with a moderate message, but disappoint 5% of the electorate who are your base so they don't vote... and you've got a net loss of support.

Furthermore, in a presidential race, you're having to assess this across an entire country, where every state may react differently. You might win Ohio with appealing to moderates, but end up losing Pennsylvania through disappointed base.

Hey, that's me! I am Pennsylvania. Here's the thing: saying moderate things isn't the same as sounding more like your opponent. When both sides are focused on a polarizing topic, sure, you're trapped in a state where anything you say that's less like your own party is more like the other, but there are literally infinite topics you could campaign on that have no partisan binary, where either the parties agree or there's no real official stance to begin with. Some of the Democrats in my state are heading for a really bad 2020 here at this rate. They did well in 2018 because they acted like I would advise them to, and now they're not following through. The biggest campaign message being pushed in 2018 was "it doesn't matter if we like the president, we've got our job to do." And as it becomes abundantly clear that they're not capable of doing anything worthwhile in Congress (which may not be their fault), they're falling back into the blame Trump plan. You think you lose Pennsylvania by being too moderate and not exciting the base? Let me tell you, they'll lose Pennsylvania if they don't accomplish anything. There is nothing polarizing and partisan in this state about infrastructure spending, everyone here agrees the roads and bridges are terrible. Well that's on the same table as impeachment at the moment, and if we don't start hearing more about the former than the latter, we won't be reelecting people. This isn't California or New York where people ran their campaign on a platform of impeaching Trump, people actively sidestepped that here, and they best as hell keep it that way.

You can't just cherry pick events and argue that a candidate presented a balanced platform. You can't say someone hoisted a LGBTQ flag once and that somehow equals umpteen key speeches praising family values and anti-abortion policies. Secondly, you also have to assess to what extent candidates stress certain policies over others, because it is the main stressed positions that dominate the headlines and thoughts of voters.

"Eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory" means he tried promising everything to everyone in an incoherent fashion. That's not the same as being "moderate". Vagueness, of course, has long been a tactic of many politicians - let voters write their own desires into nebulous statements.

Next, consider that a great deal of voters don't really notice policy much. In fact, we know perfectly well a huge proportion of voters have a very poor grasp of candidate policy. What they notice is a woman they think is an aloof, prissy feminazi, and a guy who spouts casual racism and talks about grabbing women's pussies in locker rooms, a bit like they and their mates do. And they think, "Hey, that guy sounds like someone I could share a beer with", and vote accordingly.

I'm not so worried about whether Trump counts as moderate or not. What I'm saying is that Trump's base of support isn't "the Republican Party". It just isn't. The biggest Trump supporter I've ever met is the Democratic mayor of the town I used to live in. Personally, I'd say that makes perfect sense because Trump is a Democrat, but I'd settle for using that as an illustration that "Didn't Trump win by riding an extremely blindly partisan base of support?" is a nonsense question. No. The answer to that question is absolutely not. Donald Trump did not win election because of blind party loyalty. That is not at all what happened no matter how you look at it.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Personally, I'd say that makes perfect sense because Trump is a Democrat,

Trump is not a Democrat in any definition of the term.
You don't get to use the "I know a Democrat who supported Trump!" as justification for labeling Trump a Democrat, because that mayor is obviously not a Democrat if they support Trump, you had a DINO.

but I'd settle for using that as an illustration that "Didn't Trump win by riding an extremely blindly partisan base of support?" is a nonsense question. No. The answer to that question is absolutely not. Donald Trump did not win election because of blind party loyalty. That is not at all what happened no matter how you look at it.

Except he: Ran on the Republican party ticket
Said largely the same things Republicans have been saying for the past decade - only louder and in front of cameras
His base consists of - and has always consisted of - Republicans and self-proclaimed "centrists" who somehow always end up voting Republican
He ran on the Republican party ticket
Did not once run under any policy proposal that could be considered progressive or even left of center

 

[tstorm823]

Trump is not a Democrat in any definition of the term.
You don't get to use the "I know a Democrat who supported Trump!" as justification for labeling Trump a Democrat, because that mayor is obviously not a Democrat if they support Trump, you had a DINO.

I disagree. I don't meant to say Trump is a Democrat just because I know 1 Democrat that supports him. I say that because for the duration of George W Bush's presidency, he literally was registered as a Democrat. I say that because he himself has said he often identifies more with Democrats. I say that because even though you think he's saying things "Republicans have been saying for the past decade", it's at least as true to say he's saying things Democrats had said for the last century. The only thing holding the Democratic Party back from sliding back into that comfort zone is the fear of associating with Donald Trump after characterizing him as Hitler. Donald Trump is closer to the broad trends of the Democratic Party historically than currently Democrats are, and I highly suspect the party will return swiftly to those broad trends whenever they happen to regain the presidency.

Did not once run under any policy proposal that could be considered progressive or even left of center

There is no way I can answer this line without six pages of arguing about how wrong your idea of "progressive" is. Building the wall is an inherently progressive policy suggestion.

 

[Avnger]

Trump is not a Democrat in any definition of the term.
You don't get to use the "I know a Democrat who supported Trump!" as justification for labeling Trump a Democrat, because that mayor is obviously not a Democrat if they support Trump, you had a DINO.

I disagree. I don't meant to say Trump is a Democrat just because I know 1 Democrat that supports him. I say that because for the duration of George W Bush's presidency, he literally was registered as a Democrat. I say that because he himself has said he often identifies more with Democrats. I say that because even though you think he's saying things "Republicans have been saying for the past decade", it's at least as true to say he's saying things Democrats had said for the last century. The only thing holding the Democratic Party back from sliding back into that comfort zone is the fear of associating with Donald Trump after characterizing him as Hitler. Donald Trump is closer to the broad trends of the Democratic Party historically than currently Democrats are, and I highly suspect the party will return swiftly to those broad trends whenever they happen to regain the presidency.

Did not once run under any policy proposal that could be considered progressive or even left of center

There is no way I can answer this line without six pages of arguing about how wrong your idea of "progressive" is. Building the wall is an inherently progressive policy suggestion.

This is either a stupidly bold attempt at gaslighting, or you're suffering from severe gaslighting yourself. Either way, I pity you.

 

[tstorm823]

This is either a stupidly bold attempt at gaslighting, or you're suffering from severe gaslighting yourself. Either way, I pity you.

Which of the controversial but entirely accurate things I said are you referring to?

 

[Schadrach]

Time and time again, it's been proven that Democrats perform better when dropping the whole bi-partisan tepid right-wing BS, energizing your base is a far better strategy than trying to appeal to the other side's base. Republicans get this, the day the Dems start doing the same is the day they'll able to flip the map. Just look at all of the polls about the hypothetical Sanders v Trump 2016 scenario if you want any evidence of that.

True, but the majority aren't in either side's base, which was his point. You want to energize your base, but you also need to be able to sell to the folks who don't have a strong party attachment, because there are a lot of them and they are *much* easier to sway than the other sides base.

My state was a fairly "safe" blue state until 2000, and was majority registered Democrat until 2014. Turns out a lot of that had to do with the unions and Dems being pro-worker, but unions will turn on you when you start threatening the industry they represent.

Also, the polls about Clinton v Trump 2016 were predicting a Clinton win. So I'll take hypothetical Sanders v Trump polls with a grain of salt.

Of course, what really needs said here is the importance of state legislature elections this time around, because whoever controls state legislatures will control the next redistricting. Which determines who the next round of gerrymandering will benefit.

You don't just take the centre and win. Sounding more and more like your opponents loses the support and enthuasiasm of your base. You gain voters in one way, but lose them in another. Swing 2% of voters who might support the opposition with a moderate message, but disappoint 5% of the electorate who are your base so they don't vote... and you've got a net loss of support.

Which would make sense if we operated off of national popular vote, but we don't. It would take something pretty damn extreme for California to go Republican, for example. So the goal is to appeal to the swing states while not losing the ones typically on your side with the thinnest margins.

I agree gerrymandering is a bad thing, and those who have legalised it or attempt to redraw electoral boundaries for their advantage should be hung by piano wire from a nearby lamp post.

So, everyone involved in every redistricting? Because this is very much an "everyone does it, one side is just more effective at it" situation. District lines are more or less always drawn to benefit those currently in office specifically, and their party more generally.

 

[Abomination]

So, everyone involved in every redistricting? Because this is very much an "everyone does it, one side is just more effective at it" situation. District lines are more or less always drawn to benefit those currently in office specifically, and their party more generally.

Yes. Everyone "who have legalised it or attempt to redraw electoral boundaries for their advantage". Just because the other party has done it doesn't mean that it excuses what would be a crime in any other civilised society.

 

[Avnger]

This is either a stupidly bold attempt at gaslighting, or you're suffering from severe gaslighting yourself. Either way, I pity you.

Which of the controversial but entirely accurate things I said are you referring to?

You do realize you're not the first person to try and gaslight someone right? Like we all understand how this game works.

One takes a small group of "technically true" facts to make a false argument while purposely ignoring the broader context and set of facts regarding a topic. Then they move the goal posts every time they're challenged and act indignantly affronted if someone dares to call them out despite never coming near attempting to engage in an honest conversation themselves.

You're transparent...

 

[tstorm823]

You do realize you're not the first person to try and gaslight someone right? Like we all understand how this game works.

One takes a small group of "technically true" facts to make a false argument while purposely ignoring the broader context and set of facts regarding a topic. Then they move the goal posts every time they're challenged and act indignantly affronted if someone dares to call them out despite never coming near attempting to engage in an honest conversation themselves.

You're transparent...

a) That's not what gaslighting is. Gaslighting is deliberately trying to make people question their own sanity. When I say Donald Trump is a Democrat, I imagine you're more likely to question my sanity than your own.

b) How can I even move the goalposts if you're not telling me what you're arguing with? Talk to me, it will be fun, I promise.

 

[Abomination]

You do realize you're not the first person to try and gaslight someone right? Like we all understand how this game works.

One takes a small group of "technically true" facts to make a false argument while purposely ignoring the broader context and set of facts regarding a topic. Then they move the goal posts every time they're challenged and act indignantly affronted if someone dares to call them out despite never coming near attempting to engage in an honest conversation themselves.

You're transparent...

a) That's not what gaslighting is. Gaslighting is deliberately trying to make people question their own sanity. When I say Donald Trump is a Democrat, I imagine you're more likely to question my sanity than your own.

b) How can I even move the goalposts if you're not telling me what you're arguing with? Talk to me, it will be fun, I promise.

To put this to bed, Donald Trump WAS a Democrat in name only.

Everything about the guy, and how he conducted himself, is far more Republican than Democrat.

Just like how calling someone a Nazi doesn't make them a Nazi, Trump being a registered Democrat doesn't make him a Democrat.

 

[tstorm823]

To put this to bed, Donald Trump WAS a Democrat in name only.

Everything about the guy, and how he conducted himself, is far more Republican than Democrat.

Just like how calling someone a Nazi doesn't make them a Nazi, Trump being a registered Democrat doesn't make him a Democrat.

As a matter of policy, a lot of my claim that Trump's a democrat rests on him being a 20th century democrat. And ideologically, Democratic and Republican policy in the 20th century was largely similar, both parties were conservative and progressive and liberalism cried forgotten in the corner.

But as a matter of personal conduct, that's exactly where I'd call him a Democrat. Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Like, my brother is a Democrat, and he likes Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes him because "he's a Democrat that talks like Republicans, he says progressive things without the yelling and insults." As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.

 

[Trunkage]

To put this to bed, Donald Trump WAS a Democrat in name only.

Everything about the guy, and how he conducted himself, is far more Republican than Democrat.

Just like how calling someone a Nazi doesn't make them a Nazi, Trump being a registered Democrat doesn't make him a Democrat.

As a matter of policy, a lot of my claim that Trump's a democrat rests on him being a 20th century democrat. And ideologically, Democratic and Republican policy in the 20th century was largely similar, both parties were conservative and progressive and liberalism cried forgotten in the corner.

But as a matter of personal conduct, that's exactly where I'd call him a Democrat. Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Like, my brother is a Democrat, and he likes Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes him because "he's a Democrat that talks like Republicans, he says progressive things without the yelling and insults." As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.

You and I clearly have different recollections of either Bush. Maybe this quite statesmen could be applied to Seniour but I personally wouldn't. Remember when Reagan sent people in the Traffic Controller Union to jail? Very statesmanlike. Remember when Bush Jnr maybe up shit for the War on Terror and everyone was saying, 'you're just making this stuff up. Stop lying.' Very Statemanlike. Also, how many times did one of those three go on about some new war they created, like the War on Drugs or Terror. Talking about going to War clearly is so Statemanlike.

I generally think of statesmen as trying to bring America etc together. With Bush Jnr and Reagan, they were pitting one side of America against the other. On many issues.

But then, I think Reagan, along with FDR, as the two times the US was closest to becoming a Fascist state (Trump possibly being a third, but I'd wait til his term ends.) He grew the economy through force and pretended it was trickle down economics

 

[Abomination]

As a matter of policy, a lot of my claim that Trump's a democrat rests on him being a 20th century democrat. And ideologically, Democratic and Republican policy in the 20th century was largely similar, both parties were conservative and progressive and liberalism cried forgotten in the corner.

But as a matter of personal conduct, that's exactly where I'd call him a Democrat. Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Like, my brother is a Democrat, and he likes Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes him because "he's a Democrat that talks like Republicans, he says progressive things without the yelling and insults." As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.

I think you're conflating policy with behaviour, and Democrats never had the monopoly on being creepy with women, using personal attacks, appealing to populism, or being loud and outspoken. That's politics, and you're viewing it through a very narrow lens if you think only the Democrats engage in such behaviour.

Sorry to say that you're brushing off anything negative about Trump as "Democrat behaviour". Only person you're gaslighting here is yourself.

 

[generals3]

But as a matter of personal conduct, that's exactly where I'd call him a Democrat. Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Like, my brother is a Democrat, and he likes Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes him because "he's a Democrat that talks like Republicans, he says progressive things without the yelling and insults." As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.

You basically call him a democrat because of all the negative biases you hold towards democrats... That really doesn't make him a democrat, it just says a lot about your own biases.

When it comes to populism for instance Republicans are quite the champions at it too. Just to take a couple of examples: complaining about the "elites" is a recurring populist method used across the globe. And one republicans and Donald Trump used too. The use of absurd terms like "Death Panels" reeks of populism as well. And when you look at the themes Trump used in his populist propaganda you'll note they tend to go in line with Republican populism: the elites, the swamp, dangerous immigration, obamacare, etc.
And I don't really see how democrats tend to be more vicious than republicans, both are. Maybe you give people on the "right" side more leeway than those on the "wrong" side.
And while you may associate "deviant" behavior towards women as a democratic trait due to a couple of cases I would attribute it to no one because the few cases among democratic ranks don't make a trend nor do they justify stereotyping.

 

[tstorm823]

You basically call him a democrat because of all the negative biases you hold towards democrats... That really doesn't make him a democrat, it just says a lot about your own biases.

When it comes to populism for instance Republicans are quite the champions at it too. Just to take a couple of examples: complaining about the "elites" is a recurring populist method used across the globe. And one republicans and Donald Trump used too. The use of absurd terms like "Death Panels" reeks of populism as well. And when you look at the themes Trump used in his populist propaganda you'll note they tend to go in line with Republican populism: the elites, the swamp, dangerous immigration, obamacare, etc.
And I don't really see how democrats tend to be more vicious than republicans, both are. Maybe you give people on the "right" side more leeway than those on the "wrong" side.
And while you may associate "deviant" behavior towards women as a democratic trait due to a couple of cases I would attribute it to no one because the few cases among democratic ranks don't make a trend nor do they justify stereotyping.

Honestly, I'm not sure how the Democratic Party avoids being identified as populists. What is populism?

"a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

The Democratic Party is pro-unions, anti-corporate, and blames the elite rich for essentially all of the nation's problems. They've been trying to turn the people against anyone (but them) with power or influence for decades, and have been accusing Republicans of corrupt dealings with businesses since at least Grant's presidency. How do they dodge the "populist" label?

And yes, I do associate that behavior towards women as a democratic trait based on a few cases, namely a Clinton, a Kennedy, and a Roosevelt. And I don't think I'm wrong to suggest Republican politicians lean toward prudishness, like a Vice President that won't have dinner with a woman without his wife present.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The Democratic Party is pro-unions, anti-corporate, and blames the elite rich for essentially all of the nation's problems.

Elements of the Democratic Party are those things, and its base certainly feels that way, but most of the officials in higher elected office are not that to a significant degree. Take a look at the record of someone like a Joe Biden and he's basically on the side of his corporate campaign contributors.

 

[tstorm823]

Elements of the Democratic Party are those things, and its base certainly feels that way, but most of the officials in higher elected office are not that to a significant degree. Take a look at the record of someone like a Joe Biden and he's basically on the side of his corporate campaign contributors.

Yes, but Joe Biden doesn't say that on the campaign trail. Joe Biden says he's a good old union kinda guy.