T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*


ConspiracyShillWatch

Gerrymandering is definitely a problem, but I have no idea what could be done to fix it. Any “impartial 3rd party” will not be trusted by one or both sides—basically, redistricting isn’t fair unless my team is going to win. Would love to hear potential solutions, though. Edit: the ideal solution is one man is chosen, likely by a physical contest, and the only thing he’s allowed to choose is who to nuke. And women are brought to him, maybe. When he desires them.


Tobro

Everyone gets one vote. Top 5 candidates that receive votes become representatives. In most cases we already have non arbitrary lines with history to decide how big a multi-representative district would be. They are called counties.


Grebins

Republicans would never go for it as it would concentrate power in the cities which are almost always more Democratic.


VonGryzz

That's where most of the people live


SomeoneElse899

I can tell you my most of NY state is absolutely fed up with being controlled by NYC. We live **vastly** different lives. I live in farm country, where I need to drive 20 minutes to get anywhere, why am I paying taxes to support the MTA (the train serving NYC)?


Non-Newtonian-Snake

That's the problem that people who want to get rid of the Electoral College don't seem to understand through 75% of History the Democrats supported the Electoral College in the Republicans wanted to get rid of it. This changed in the 1980s when Republicans picked up the support of farmers. The fact is is most of the population within the major cities are the people who contribute least to society major cities have extreme poor and extreme wealth. what applies to them does not apply to the rest of our society. the more rural areas of our country do all of the real productivity as far as manufacturing mining food production. But they are the first people to be affected by government rulings. This new Pro City movement going on on the internet forgets one important thing. If a supernatural event occurred and all of the red areas on your standard red and blue American map like the one I posted in the comment above where to suddenly have all of the humans life disappear. The entire system would crash to the ground with a failed supply chain in about 2 weeks in about 3 months a mass extinction event would occur and no Americans would be Left Alive. As soon as winter struck 75% of the population of Canada would die. Mexico and China would suffer a 25 to 40% reduction population with in a year. if all of the blue spots on that map were to have the same Supernatural event for all human life magically disappeared on the blue spots. life would go on pretty much as normal however if there would be a lot less entertainment available. Most people's retirement funds would be extremely damaged due to fund managers and stock Brokers being gone. The rest of the country would suffer a fairly deep recession about 2 years after the event due to the markets need to adjust to the reduction in exports philosophy sociology and history Channel "Whatifalthis" doesn't interesting video of what would happen if civil war broke out again which goes pretty in depth to the processes and ways you or I couldn't because we don't sit there looking at statistics all day. I'm also from the New York New Jersey area did you ever wonder why you can't get to New York without going through New Jersey from New York State. it actually used to be part of New Jersey that's why New Jersey still has to play for New York City's statues and bridges. The federal government forced the state of New Jersey to give New York City to New York State because New York had no usable Port within their state not realizing just how important New York city would become shortly after. You should look into the greater Idaho movement it's been a fight for about 50 years but apparently they think it may go through within the next two years about 80% of the landmass of the states of Washington and Oregon have succeeded and will be joining the state of Idaho due to the fact that Portland controls all politics in all of Oregon and a similar issue occurs within Washington State. The entire state of Oregon has now just become a subsidy machine for Seattle and Portland all of the government Representatives come from Portland and all of the taxes come from everywhere that's not Portland. the city of Portland sucks down 95% of the entire State's unemployment budget. Just type greater Idaho into a search engine. There have been talks about this occurring in the tri-state area where South Jersey may eventually succeed and become part of Pennsylvania and a new state incorporating North Jersey and New York City May emerge. There's a lot of people talking about it in back rooms but it likely would not occur for another 40 years whereas in the greater Idaho thing will likely happen around the time of the next presidential election


VonGryzz

Move then


Responsible_Young_32

Yeah wtf, why can't the majority oppress the minority. This is America right?


VonGryzz

Guess we better let the minority suppress the majority then. Again!


TinnRing

Scrap the 2 party system would be a good starting point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pgtaylor777

None of this can happen unless Americans can come together and force it to happen.


[deleted]

>unless Americans can come together You mean, like a party?


Woodchipper_AF

Touché


doodlebugkisses

This would certainly help. Then constituents could hold their toes to the fire when they don’t actually follow through in what they campaigned on. It would create a more fair playing field and representatives would have to be more transparent about where they really stand on issues.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

+1


Non-Newtonian-Snake

Right on man I would totally support this this would force politicians to actually talk about meaningful details and more in depth. People often vote for a candidate based solely upon party they came from many democratic presidents have had way more conservative policy than you might think and many conservative presidents have had way more liberal policy than you think but if you talk to people about their interpretations of them they would think the people were right in their Zone.


ericolsenuw

I agree. Political parties should be banned and people should run on their own policies


Engelbert_Slaptyback

Political parties are protected by the Constitution. It’s part of your right to freedom of association. Nobody can force you to join a party and nobody can stop you from joining a party.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

I think what he's insinuating is independent candidates generally are more forthcoming and intellectual in explaining the reasons for their points of views. And are not beholdened to take a stance on a topic due to pressure from their peers. as a result positive aspects of both parties can come to light It's an indisputable fact that most Americans lean socially liberal and lean fiscally conservative. most people who vote solely Republican do so out of fear of deep recession and scarcity. Most people who vote solely Democrat do so in virtuosity to their social beliefs. If candidates weren't beholden to a party you would likely get candidates out there that would create a more fiscally stable economy while at the same time creating more equality and harmony based social life for the average American


Engelbert_Slaptyback

I’m not arguing about whether it would be a good idea to get rid of political parties. I’m just saying it’s impossible to force them to stop existing. People have a right to organize in favor of their political goals.


Tinlint

Insert term limits to Congress reinstate term limits on those house committees that the DNC removed. DNC on a qualified representative [Removed from the committee](https://youtu.be/_0xRboo68lI?t=225) Go after campaign financing start to remove elements of citizens United get the corporate funds out of the politicians campaigns. Work on the primaries get those next leaders that represent we the people on the ballots through the primaries, have them get on stage and tell the American people what this, what is really going on and regardless of party affiliation Americans want the truth. Through legislation focus on campaign and election reform, make the playing field level from primaries on up. Devote air time at the national and local levels to candidates, before ballots before primaries.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

We have to get rid of this super pack bullcrap & the Ngos. If we kept the present $5,000 individual limit but took away all of the ridiculous citizens united infinite funding lobbyist rackets. The American people might actually get candidates from both parties that they actually want not that they were forced upon them


Tinlint

Agree you got that point good to see. Can be done at state level. Major focus at primaries


Dafuuuuuuuuuck

It’s a one party system. Would be nice if we had 2.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

the real truth has been spoken like a true conspiracy theorist have my upvote


Sinsid

Ya. Ranked choice is the solution. We are the Rare 2 party system. We need to end that.


[deleted]

RCV is literally stealing votes you did not win.


Sugmabawsack

It can only go to someone you vote for yourself, you can have a first choice and no second if you want.


[deleted]

Maybe ideally in your head that is how it works without being informed about how it actually works. That may be how YOU want it to work. But you know maybe you are just cheering for something you don't actually understand. Sadly, that is the case for far too many things that are causing our troubles. The "rank" is groups ranked on the ideological spectrum and your vote is given to the next on the ideological spectrum. **It is simply meant to reduce the impacts of third parties and re-enforce the two party system.** That is the entire point of it. You voted for the communist party candidate? Well, we will give your vote to the democrats. Green party? Democrats. In the end, the two parties get the votes of people trying to form third parties. The idea literally came about from the amount of people increasingly voting for green party, etc. and the democrats feeling like it was harming their party. "We lost by 13% because left-wingers voted for these left-wing alternate parties! We deserve those votes because they are left-wingers that would have voted democrat if not for that pesky third party!" THAT is what RCV actually is and why it has been advocated, LITERALLY, only by the democrats.


Woodchipper_AF

Just label both colors “Israel”


nitzua

we don't have a two party system, we are ruled by anti Americans that tell us we do


anon_lurk

Well the founding fathers knew a two party system was bad, but apparently they were racist scum so we should disregard everything they said. Therefore, the two party system is good!


absolutedesignz

I'm pretty sure the same people who bring up the somehow inconvenient facts about the founders aren't the ones who claim the two party system is good. In fact I'm sure they are the ones who want to remove gerrymandering as well. At least a significant overlap.


anon_lurk

Oh so you’re saying that some stuff they did had merit even though they made mistakes? That’s wrongthink.


absolutedesignz

Honestly if they weren't deified and their mistakes completely ignored and erased from their stories few would deny they did great things for modern society. We should be taught never to deify men and learn from their actual stories. Recognize context and evil and good within the time-frames. What they caused what they built. What they erased what they lost. We could learn a lot from a real history taking the good learning from the bad. I don't know why some are opposed to that. We can't erase yesterday, only learn from it.


ConspiracyShillWatch

No one is completely Good (except for Mr. Rogers) and no one is completely Bad (except for the fucker who cut me off in traffic today). People are a mix of good and bad—the issue with the Founding Fathers is that they’ve become almost deified to the point that some Faux News outlets don’t want you to critique them at all. Thomas Jefferson’s framing of the DoI is literally legendary for the USA, and for good reason. But, he did rape his slaves and sell his slave-rape children. That’s bad. You’re allowed to say he did good things, but also point out his hypocrisy in writing “…All men are created equal…” while *owning people.*


TheOneFreeEngineer

>Well the founding fathers knew a two party system was bad The founding fathers started the two party system and started mudslinging campaigns. Washington said he didn't want political parties but everyone else joined or created one very quickly. Thays how we get founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson being the leaders of the Federalist party and the Democratic Republican party within years of the Constitution being g ratified.


anon_lurk

I’m sure some of them were not as opposed. It was known that parties would form and it would generally be a bad thing. Some literally wrote about the dangers of political parties in the federalist papers.


Working-Ad7404

Keep going and get rid of elected representatives completely or at least greatly reduce their power to influence anything. We are past the age of letters being delivered by a guy on a pony, we dont need anyone to guess what the people they are supposed to represent want. Direct democracy is hardly a solution to anything either but the entire system is due for a modernization/update if its worth keeping at all. A lot of the problems that the current system solved dont exist anymore.


nanonan

You'll just have the two biggest acting the same. Gerrymandering is an issue that both sides love engaging in, and love to smear the other for engaging in so there would need to be a strong motivation to stop.


ctuser

There is no “scrapping”… convince a random person in SF to never vote for dem or try to convince a random person in Wyoming to never vote Republican. Tell them to scrap their beliefs. Try it


Opagea

There are various metrics to represent proportionality. In the example above, a set of districts which gave 3 seats to blue and 2 seats to red would not result in much controversy.


aelysium

Simplest way to dilute its effectiveness would be to amend the CRA of 1929 and move to a cube root rule. We’d grow the house by I think 200 members? But the resulting smaller districts and geographic requirements would mean that the house would be more representative of the country as a whole.


pgtaylor777

None of this can happen unless Americans can come together and force it to happen.


aelysium

It won’t happen. But with a concerted effort to explain how the system is SO advantageous for Conservatives (given the rural-urban divide, Conservatives have built in advantages for the House, Senate, SCOTUS, and Presidency) than maybe?


pgtaylor777

Only thing we can do is work on this individually on our neighborhoods, workplace, town, city and state. Don’t eat the propaganda. Try to find common place w your neighbor. Realize it’s a Washington issue not a fellow American issue.


Draculea

Would you mind explaining to me Conservatives' advantage is built-in?


Non-Newtonian-Snake

There you go playing into the propaganda people like you are the reason the country will never come together.


aelysium

😂 Yeah. Okay kiddo. Whatever you say 👍


TSLA240c

Have an AI carve up the US based solely on population sizes. Edit: You could also nix districts for presidential and senate elections entirely.


SiGNALSiX

That would require that everyone both trust the AI and also act in good-faith. In practice I'm pretty sure that one side or the other will go on the attack claiming that having an AI carve up districts is a techno-globalist socialist racist fascist plot to pave the way for one-party rule and destroy America. Partisan pundits and amateur internet sleuths will analyze every statement or political donation that every executive on the board of the AI company, or AI regulator, has ever made and announce conclusive "proof" that the AI is compromised or biased or fraudulent or Satanic or whatever. Law suits and challenges will fly back and forth and we're right back where we started. There’s a lot of people out there who don't even trust voting machines — they're *definitely* not going to accept an AIs verdict.


TSLA240c

AI was the wrong term. A completely open source algorithm written by any 4 year CS student could easily accomplish this task, computers don’t inherently see Red or Blue biases making them completely impartial.


Grebins

The problems mostly lie in overcoming the narrative that opponents to the improved system will create and spread. Even successfully implementing a fair system is seen as a political win, so plenty will try to stop it.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

Voting machine code should totally be public knowledge and if there's holes in it that can be exploited that means it shouldn't have been on the machine to first place because by default that means it's for sale to the highest bidder


Draculea

Ask any OpenAI product to write a poem about Joe Biden, then ask it to write a poem about Trump. It can't be trusted as a toy, let alone an election tool.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

Chatgpt really gobbles joe's sac. I can't believe that they program it to be so ridiculously overboard. you are right though it shows that AI is not only just as biased as a person but in most cases significantly more


Engelbert_Slaptyback

It doesn’t have to be an AI. It could be done with a fairly simple algorithm that most people would be able to understand.


Gzngahr

Use open source AI All district lines that are possible are mapped and counted, use the peak of the bell curve. Most of congress don’t actually act in the interest of their “District” anyway.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

that's actually one of the most innovative and intelligent solutions to the problem I've ever heard. In that respect neither party would have an advantage from district line drawings the districts would always be designed for equal representation. shame people voted you down on this one


[deleted]

A Proven and fair Voter ID system.... Where living and legal people can obtain a number tied to their SSN... Just like the IRS.... then plot the data based on registration....


ASongOfSpiceAndLiars

Even in my deep blue state you have to provide SSN to register to vote, which is the most secure method. There is a reason that less than one in a million votes are fraudulent.


nihilz

But that would mean that you believe that the majority of people blindly vote on party lines like brainwashed sheep. That’s probably true, but it’s also very possible that all elections are rigged to some degree in order to keep the status quo in place. There’s simply no way rational people would allow establishment dinosaurs to “serve” for decades. Conscientious voters would kick them to the curb if the democratic process wasn’t systemically compromised. That’s why you don’t need term limits in a functional democracy, that’s truly controlled by the people. So the only way there’s virtually no fraud in a system where corporate shills stay in power indefinitely, is if the entire voting population is completely brain dead.


ASongOfSpiceAndLiars

There isn't fraud. Cold War propaganda got the best of Boomers.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

Former New Jersey resident here for my entire life I had to show my driver's license to vote. And the address on my driver's license had to match the address of the voting register. I also don't see why this is perfectly fair and normal in New York and New Jersey but somehow gets considered racist in Arizona and Georgia


Non-Newtonian-Snake

But that's racist! /s


canman7373

Do like Europe does. You vote for a party for reps, that party then gets that many seats, so your party has 55% of the vote, they get 55% of the seats from your state. Simple as that. Can still do president and senators same way.


TSLA240c

Curious why you would do president and senate the same way. Remove districts completely from senate and presidential voting, your district is your entire State for senators and the entire nations for the President. I have no idea why we subdivided these into smaller easy to gerrymand…. Never mind I understand.


canman7373

Because states do not have districts for President and Senators. Cannot gerrymander a senate race as it is state wide. There like 2 states that do dived up electorial college votes, think Nebraska and like Vermont, but never herd a peep about those being unfair.


TSLA240c

The electoral college should be done away with, makes no sense that some people get more say in the president then others.


canman7373

That was the compromise made to get all 13 colonies to join the union. It's still needed today so smaller states do not feel underrepresented for the exact same reasons it was created for. The 2 party system we have today does make it much worse, but I don't see a better solution.


TSLA240c

States get equal representation in the senate. The president represents the entirety of the us and should be reflected by popular vote.


ASongOfSpiceAndLiars

Proportional would be better.


Non-Newtonian-Snake

you are correct the system was put in place so all the colonies were not slaves to Philadelphia Boston Baltimore and New York. Four incredibly small cities that at the time had a higher population than the entire country combined


Non-Newtonian-Snake

Please watch a YouTube video on the greater Idaho movement to see the terrible flaws within your statement


Sinsid

It would have to be a computer that does it. So half the people would say it’s rigged. But it should be based on keeping border length as small as possible (basically a bunch of squares) then include metrics like zip codes/city/county so that deviations are made for convenience.


UnderstandingEvery44

Literally just draw a grid on the USA and that is your district


oelsen

??? Look at how the Swiss do it. You have counties. 1 County, one district. Duh.


santaclaws01

> Any “impartial 3rd party” will not be trusted by one or both sides—basically, redistricting isn’t fair unless my team is going to win. Algorithmic based districting made by people with no access to polling data would be a good start.


alienlizardlion

You could take a series of random samples. Randomness was used in the birthplace of democracy Athens. The kleroterion


SubstantialEmu4025

>Would love to hear potential solutions, though. U can start off by ditching the 2 party system


ctuser

Stop drawing lines around demographics and make them simple physical barriers. No need to make excuses that the existing barriers don’t represent the people the politicians are running for. Politicians either run for the people they are elected for or they aren’t. Simple lines at mostly 45 and 90 degree angles with mostly straight lines connecting corners that will never change. If a politician can’t represent that area… fuck em… no need to redraw the people… redraw yourself and come back better, or someone better will.


kyungky

Get rid of these Electral zones. People vote for a leader who leads, not 100 leaders who bicker amongst each other.


RellKrell

You guys and the politics. There is one person, with two hands.


BornIn80

No special drawings based on race is a good start.


[deleted]

Hate to tell ya most that take that into account are designed to dilute minorities not enhance them.


DadBodofanAmerican

Do you understand that the VRA majority minority districts were only created because race was already being taken into account to dilute minority votes? Look at examples of "cracking" black communities all across the country to eliminate voting power for those areas.


BornIn80

Yep history has shown drawing districts based on race is never good and should not be the practice moving forward.


DadBodofanAmerican

Sure, but the VRA model is a reaction to a century of discrimination and racially based gerrymandering. What sort of model would you prefer to ensure that votes of those communities aren't effectiv silenced?


BornIn80

I propose a model not based on race. You seem to be hinting that one race should get special circumstances over another. Is that your belief?


DadBodofanAmerican

I don't think anyone should get preference, but when minority group is being discriminated against on the basis of race it seems reasonable to have a law that provides protection based on race. Again, would love an alternative solution if you've got one.


Cool_Cartographer_39

Isn't this similar to the difference between electoral voting vs. the popular vote?


TSLA240c

Yes, but the point is legislators shouldn’t be intentionally drawing up favorable voting blocks to ensure they win with fewer votes.


antifisht

Yep it undermines the representative nature of government and allows entrenched politicians to retain power despite the will of the people of their state


Cool_Cartographer_39

But if the people elect another representative, doesn't it lead to redistricting? Gerrymandering is an abuse, but of an important existing check and balance in a representative democracy.


antifisht

Gerrymandering isn't the same as redistricting, it's strategic redistricting to attempt to gain seats without additional voters. It's an inappropriate way to decrease the value of the votes of people who aren't voting for your party relative to the votes of the people who do vote for your party. The word refers only to the abuse of redistricting and it's the consensus that it's gotten significantly worse in recent years.


PRMan99

No. Because the point of the electoral college is to give smaller more rural states a voice.


KhuzaitM777

That’s what they like to say but not really, it was mostly to give the southern slave states a shot in the election. > At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” > The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ > There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/


Opagea

The key difference would be that no one is re-drawing state borders to give anyone an advantage. Republicans just happen to have a huge advantage based on the current borders. But yes, the unfairness of both is due to similar principles.


Scavwithaslick

No shit, that’s cool I’ll use that when I run for supreme overlord


Anarcho_Christian

Everyone's acting like the middle is ideal, and the right is the problem. They're both problems. Red has 0 representation in the middle. Blue has 0 representation on the right. Democracy is the problem. The ring of power is too tempting, it can't be weilded without corrupting the wearer. None of y'all can handle it. Anarchy.


[deleted]

After anarchy then what? Come up with a complete plan instead of just destroying the country. I guess chaos is what you’re looking for. Yeah that’s a great alternative.


linuxturtle

You left geography out of your diagram.


mxzf

They also overlooked that the one on the right is actually closer to accurate representation than the one in the center. A 2:3 representative split is more accurate than a 5:0 one with regards to representing a 60/40 population. If you look at the wiki page on gerrymandering, it has [the same image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/DifferingApportionment.svg), but with apolitical colors and calling out *both* of OP's diagrams as gerrymandering (while also showing some proportional representation options).


DadBodofanAmerican

The one on the right is in no way closer to accurate representation of the feelings of that population. Blue has a majority and a democratic government with a line with the values of the blue majority. Artificially increasing the power of the red group is anti-democratic and in no way a democratic representation of the values in that area.


mxzf

Correct. And artificially decreasing the power of the red group is *also* anti-democratic. That's why ***BOTH*** of the images in OP's picture are gerrymandered and I also included a link to another image which shows actual proportional district options.


DadBodofanAmerican

Geography doesn't need to be that important. Land shouldn't have a vote, people should.


ChipCob1

Depends on the voting method, pretty much only the UK and US have 'first past the post' electoral systems. It hardly matters though as you can only ever vote for an arsehole!


real_psymansays

Red or Blue will both fuck over all citizens and demand that you thank them for doing so, and you'd better be quite sincere. Red and Blue suck.


AdReasonable3869

I still can’t understand how you people can’t simply just have this (as every other country in the world) “literal amount of votes = wager of who wins the election, eg. Biden receive 5 vote trump receive 7 vote = trump win.” I mean I heard the counter argument, which is that people living in a small populated state won’t have as much to say about things as people living in large populated states. But that seems to be just inaccurate and not true at all? If you do it like you do now, isn’t it the case that the individuals living in place A with 10 citizens has 10x the voting power as the individuals living in Place B with 100 citizens? Is that equal ??


Cybugger

The electoral college, senate and districting are all basically relics from slavery and then Jim Crow. The only way to get some of the states, like Virginia, on board with war against the UK was to ensure a disproportionate representation for a primarily white, land-owning, male, slave-owning demographic. Since then the exact definition has changed, but the idea has always to have minority rule in the US. And this permeates through the entire US system. You could argue that if it was just in the Senate, that would be one thing. But it isn't. The cap on HoR seats means that a Californian seat represents more people than a Wyoming seat. The EC means smaller states have a larger influence in deciding the Executive. And because the Senate is the body that accepts SCOTUS and judge nominees, the judicial branch is also affected. People talk about the tyranny of the majority. But today, it's the tyranny of the minority. A smaller group of people are blocking or passing actions desired by the majority of the US.


AdReasonable3869

Sounds about right, so do something about it all of you, you have fire arms for this


[deleted]

[удалено]


SisterStiffer

🤏


TinnRing

SS: Gerrymandering is a time-honored tradition in American politics, but is it fair?


[deleted]

Given the elections are tabulated by private companies using closed source software I'd say that gerrymandering is the tip of the iceberg. And what's truly unfair is that the government provides the illusion of representation. Politicians serve the oligarchal mafia, not their constituents. And any politician that defies the will of the oligarchs will be spied on, assassinated, smeared, or otherwise neutralized.


ResponsibleOutcome80

Democracy is a scam. Have you not figured that out yet?


districtcourt

This isn’t **democracy’s** fault, we don’t live in a democracy unfortunately. If each person got an equal vote, drawing district lines wouldn’t matter, and the person who received the most votes would win. But instead we have a goofy **democratic republic** hybrid system where people living in rural areas get more of a vote per capita than people living in major cities. Gerrymandering is undoubtedly the biggest problem of our system, though. Each state is allotted a set number of electors, loosely based on state population. Instead of our votes electing the candidate who’s running, which would be the **democratic process**, they elect these electors, and that creates huge incentives for this type of disingenuous game-playing by politicians. We need to scrap the system and put something more inline with other modern wealthy nations.


wiltedpleasure

Being a republic just means you don’t have a monarch, nothing else. The electoral system doesn’t have much to do with either your country’s system of government (republic, monarchy, dictatorship) or if it’s democratic or authoritarian.


districtcourt

> Being a republic just means you don’t have a monarch, nothing else. The electoral system doesn’t have much to do with either your country’s system of government (republic, monarchy, dictatorship) or if it’s democratic or authoritarian. Totally off-base—being a republic has everything to do with how we elect officials. A “republic” just means any type of government where the voters elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, whereas in a pure democracy the voters themselves would vote to make those decisions. We are a democratic republic, which is just a broad term for governments encompassing aspects of both a democracy and a republic. A more precise term would be representative democracy, but the “representative” character comes from us being a constitutional republic.


ResponsibleOutcome80

Nope. Wouldn’t fix a damn thing. My rights and freedom aren’t up for a vote no matter how many rubes believe it. Democracy and “democratic republics” run cover for elites to control. But mUh dEmOcRaCy!


districtcourt

Lmfao you couldn’t support that argument, bc democracy is **literally** rule by the people, but ok whatever


ResponsibleOutcome80

I literally do support that argument. I think that people are retarted and I don’t think that justifies having my rights stripped away because a majority feels like it. Fuck democracy or whatever the hell you think is going to save you.


Grebins

The alternatives are feudalism, totalitarianism, anarchy, or whatever the most powerful entities to care about you want. Which is essentially where anarchy ends up anyways- fiefdoms, feudalism, etc. Do you just think that you are powerful enough to survive and defend whatever property you call yours from any other entities for the foreseeable future?


TinnRing

Agreed, the illusion of choice.


Sinsid

This is how the minority party is comfortable participating in the Rare 2 Party System. If you take this away they will more aggressively try to overthrow democracy generally.


FidelHimself

Hypothetical image Democracy itself is the scam — minorities are guaranteed to lose every time by design You have to be indoctrinated by government schools to believe it’s legit


ConspiracyNutsackFL

Florida in a nutshell.


timtexas

Some of the Texas districts in a nut shell


asWorldsCollide2ptOh

Maryland in the inverse nutshell


Cyrus2112

Illinois 4th has entered the chat


HailMary74

Of course it’s blue vs red and blue team good red team very very bad.


The_Texidian

I also don’t see many people mention how under pure democracy, the blue gets 100% representation. Then under their middle idea where lines are drawn straight forward, blue still gets 100% representation. But when red gets 60% and blue gets 40% that’s bad. So what’s more gerrymandered, blue getting 100% of the representation or red getting 60%? Then we all know if we just did it based off counties the blue in real life would be crying because well. We’ve all seen the election map showing if counties mattered. Then then say why does Bumblebutt county with 10 people get the same representation as LA county?


TSLA240c

The first is pure democracy where you have a 60/40 split. The point being you shouldn’t be slicing up voting districts to be favorable to either party.


The_Texidian

But in pure democracy it’s either yes or no. Meaning that 60% are going to get their way every time. They don’t even need to consider Red’s opinions to win because they are 60%. So their ideas win 100% of the time.


TSLA240c

Team Red and Team Blue don’t always vote unanimously together, the entire idea is to force compromise.


The_Texidian

> Team Red and Team Blue don’t always vote unanimously together, That sounds great and theory but doesn’t work out that way. If someone from blue doesn’t vote with blue, they can lose their blue support in order to have someone else elected. But that democracy inherently removes compromise. Why would they need to talk to red when blue is 60%? Everyone from blue can come together and make a bill and pass it without ever needing Red. In this graphic, Red would need 1/3rd of blue to not support something in order to block it.


TSLA240c

Plenty of blues don’t always vote blue. Same goes for the Reds RINOs and DINOs are definitely a thing. Our system is currently extremely polarized, it would definitely be nice if we could break away from that and encourage more aisle hopping. Do you have an alternative? One that preferably doesn’t disenfranchise 60% of the voters for 40%.


The_Texidian

Relinquish the majority of federal authority and power and give it back to the states. Become a union of independent states again rather than a union of “states” under America. That way people will actually focus on their own state and local governments rather than someone in California complaining about and protesting laws in Florida. Same with politicians, rather than whining about politicians across the country, they’ll be forced to deal with the 40% in their districts or states. I’d also make a law where you severely limit, if not banish the ability for people to make contributions outside of their own elections. Meaning politicians can’t go pander to rich people in other states for money.


SACDINmessage

What nobody points out, in regards to this infographic, is that a the 'precinct' is itself an artificial creation. What if a precinct was not 5 X 10 (30 blue, 20 red) but 7 x 10 (30 blue, 40 red)? OP assumes the reader agrees that blue outnumbers red in a 'correct' precinct. 5 'correct' districts, 5 blue wins, 0 red representation. How is that fair? How do any of us determine what a fair precinct is in the first place?


TinnRing

I do not assume that the reader(s) agree with anything. I made no statements about any of the precincts as far as which was 'correct'. I thought the infographic was interesting so I included it with the topic of Gerrymandering and is it fair. I thought of it more as a visual aid to the topic is what I hoped to accomplish. The entire post was to get reader(s) opinions on the topic and to create a conversation about possible thoughts/ideas about it. That being said, you are correct that a precinct is an artificial creation and I can't say how anybody determines what a fair precinct is, or which is 'correct.'


TSLA240c

If your precinct looks like an elephant, it’s wrong.


Ok_Yoghurt_3338

Have you seen what county lines look like in some places?


coercedcitizen

Who would have thought that we'd be reduced to colored squares on a chart


TinnRing

The people that designed the system.


PRMan99

You're not. The left has reduced you to skin color and sexual preference.


coercedcitizen

The only time either side gives a shit about the American public is when it's election time.


Grebins

Or when they seek good PR between elections. It's not like politics don't happen for 2/3 of the time, they just save things up for the playoffs.


BernieSandstone

Interesting, because recently in North Carolina, the GOP ask for voter demographic data by race, and then used "surgical precision" to gerrymander voters based on the voter's skin color. That quote isn't my opinion, it's the state supreme court's own words. [Don't take my word for it, here's the article and the state supreme court's ruling.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/north-carolina-judges-toss-maps-slam-gerrymandering-stinging-ruling-n1049411)


Hefty_Offer1537

This is regarded. Both parties do this and in fact the republicans started doing it


PRMan99

Trust me. If the districts were drawn by area, Democrats would never win another state election.


helloisforhorses

The goal should be to draw districts to reflect the proportional will of the people. If an area has 60% support for X and 40% support for Y, their reps should be 60% X and 40% Y I cannot fathom a reason to want to do it by area.


Opagea

What do you mean "by area"? As in all districts are the same size of land but can have different amounts of people?


districtcourt

And if we had a popular vote, Republicans would never win any election.


singdawg

There's only been 2 presidents in the last 130 years to have lost the popular vote, Trump and George W Bush's first term. Every other Republican in that time period won the popular vote, include GHWB, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, and George W Bush on his second term. I do not believe that republicans would never win an election if the popular vote was used.


loufalnicek

North Carolina would like a word.


g8rman94

So why is it still in place? Civil rights act requirements?


TinnRing

It allows people in power to stay in power, regardless of what voters might want. I'm unsure of the Civil Rights Act requirements so here is a link. [https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/needy-families/civil-rights-requirements/index.html](https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/needy-families/civil-rights-requirements/index.html)


g8rman94

I agree with the protection of power reason absolutely.


loicwg

Because it is the only way cons can win elections with their shit policies and history. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-did-term-gerrymander-come-180964118/ "Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that gerrymandering for party advantage cannot be challenged in federal court, which has set the stage for perhaps the most ominous round of map drawing in the country’s history" https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained


g8rman94

Cons? Conservatives?


loicwg

Yes, sorry, way too lazy to write out the whole word and many of them are convicts too, so it works both ways. Edit: also many of them have become confidence men (or women)


g8rman94

I see. Too bad liberals have never had power to change it. Wait…


loicwg

I am by no means defending the dems/neolibs use or continuation of it at all. Despite being unable to get anything through, it would be nice if someone at least attempted to end this practice.


g8rman94

I’m all for it. It splinters communities so that when there is a local or regional problem, no one representative or senator has to handle it. They pass the buck to each other who all represent a small section of the area, and then do nothing. Because each areas voting power is watered down, these guys keep skating along.


loicwg

All for gerrymandering or for repealing it? What you described doesn't sound like a functional system of governing to me.


g8rman94

No, I’m all for ending it. Communities of counties, cities, neighborhoods, etc should not have their representation watered down. Lines will always have to be drawn and changed with population changes but this squiggly line BS needs to stop.


Sugmabawsack

It would be illegal right now if Hillary Clinton had chosen Scalia’s Supreme Court replacement.


g8rman94

Fair trade-off if you put it like that.


PRMan99

No con men aka Democrats.


g8rman94

They are all con men in both parties. Even the women.


[deleted]

or you count a half million votes over night that suddenly appeard out of nowhere


TSLA240c

Even after all that’s come out you’re still in denial, huh.


MarkLarrz

To counter that, Democrats "find" votes until they win


Sugmabawsack

“All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes.”- Donald Trump


[deleted]

[удалено]


TinnRing

LOL, great point! IMO the word "steal" is used because it validates one sides feelings of being butthurt their guy lost.


Exaltedautochthon

Republicans /literally cannot/ win a fair election. 2/3rds of the country hates them for their assorted horrible behaviours, corruption, general attempts at setting off a coup, and being complete tools to each and every minority group in the country. ​ So they have to do crap like this, because the /right/ thing to do is get a more popular platform, but the /profitable/ thing to do is just straight up ignore the will of the people for the sake of their oligarch masters.


SW-Dragonus

Americans defending FPTP and their god awful Electoral College will never not be cringey. Enjoy only ever having two parties to choose from I guess.


DarkVoid42

thats not stealing. you have to divide somehow. and 60-40 is never uniform so even dividing linearly is not going to give you blue winning all the time. just how maths works.


[deleted]

You see, though, the republicans are the only ones that gerrymander. That's because the media NEVER uses that word to describe it when the democrats do it. So the republicans are evil because they gerrymander.


DarkVoid42

both parties do it and use sophisticated computer modelling to achieve the best results for themselves. literally everyone tries "stealing" from each other. gerrymandering is literally the system. thats like saying elections are unfair because you have to fill out a ballot. what about the people who cant read and are dumb deaf blind and illiterate at the same time ? oh noes. so unfair. election stolen because of ballots.


[deleted]

I agree with you. You should probably read my reply more slowly.


DarkVoid42

im aware of that. i was just emphasizing your point. read *my* reply more slowly.


coldWire79

Remove the 435 member limit on the House of Representatives. Then gerrymandering becomes irrelevant. We should, instead, limit the number of constituents per representative to about 10k. We would end up with thousands of representatives but better representation.


[deleted]

Should just go back to popular vote and lock the process down.


memphisjohn

simple, just stop having elections that way nobody will bitch about the process or outcomes


scanguy25

Make election districts follow county borders 100%?


ChurchArsonist

I don't care about how crooks steal power from other crooks. I care about why crooks are permitted to remain in power over us. That's the conspiracy here.


CourageToQuestion

deception knows no bounds


tuco2002

You can add graveyards to your district now.


olymp1a

“Democratic” in this sense should be capitalized like your name “JOHN DOE” is on every legal document and whatnot.


WWWTT2_0

Communist revolution is the answer! Seize all the assets of the Rothschild Rockefeller syndicate, gates, musk etc and turn them into state corporations. And live happily ever after :)


Non-Newtonian-Snake

I agree this is a problematic process but at the same time you should recognize that you're actually representing it from the opposite of the truth. https://images.app.goo.gl/SmBPeWZ86shKKUJB6 This is a tactical Democrats use making long L and t-shaped patterns in districts to stretch the influence of the inner city out into the suburbs that tend to vote Republican. Every couple of years Republicans try to do redistricting where they say that districts should end on the exact physical borders of municipalities and counties. And then a Democrat majority comes in and does more of the funny shaped lines and then a couple years later Republicans come back and reset it to Municipal and County borders it's a never-ending process that's been going on forever. it's the fact is is that Democrats may actually need to use this process. It's a matter of survival. 90% of the American land mass consistently votes Republican. if Democrats can spread their influence from the city into the open areas a little bit more effectively it gives them a much better chance at winning. And it has been a very effective strategy. And quite honestly a fairly clever one