Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Paladin of Ice

US Politics: The Ides of Mueller

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Don looks fucking menacing as this kid is explaining the scheme

The first bit I saw he had a squeaky voice. Normal now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I think this kid's going to sink his own ship

Catholics who feel guilty are one thing, we're trained from childhood. Canadians have to grow into feeling guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shryke said:

The US in general is weird with confusing non-partisan with 50/50 pure partisans.

That's because "non-partisan" is a myth akin to believing an appellate judge's decisions isn't primarily based on partisanship/ideology.  

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Other countries manage to draw ridings/districts/etc without the insane level of political meddling y'all have. Even some states are doing it right now and afaik it works pretty well.

There are only two states - Arizona and California - that include nonpartisan/unaffiliated members in their "independent" commissions for redistricting US congressional seats.  Arizona actually right now has great proportionality, 5 GOP and 4 Dems in their 9 seats.  However, only 3 of these 9 seats are remotely competitive, which does not reflect a increasingly purple state (Trump won by 3 and a half points).  Moreover, as mentioned in the above link ("hotly debated"), these commissions tend to have competing goals beyond simple proportionality, and favoring such goals tends to reflect the partisanship of each member.

As for California, 39 of their 53 seats (73.6%) are held by Democrats.  A whopping 30 of these seats have Cook PVI's of D+12 or more, and 8 more are at D+5 or more.  While Democrats have received between 60-62% of the vote in the last three presidential cycles, this demonstrates partisan gerrymandering is not solely a GOP problem (rather, it's a problem that tends to increase as one party increasingly dominates a state), nor does the inclusion of nonpartisan commission members lead to more proportionality or competitiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That's because "non-partisan" is a myth akin to believing an appellate judge's decisions isn't primarily based on partisanship/ideology.  

In the US, sure. But that's in part because of exactly the thing I was talking about in the quote above.

Like holy shit are your basic governmental functions politicized to an insane degree you don't see in many other countries. It's not normal dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Like holy shit are your basic governmental functions politicized to an insane degree you don't see in many other countries. It's not normal dude.

No, it certainly is not normal.  That's kind of what I'm trying to emphasize - the recent "extreme" gerrymandering seen in the US House is a symptom of extreme and asymmetric polarization in the US, not the cause.  This leads to difficulties/complexities in fixing gerrymandering, and even if we did so, it wouldn't solve the larger problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point the only fix to gerrymandering for the USA is ditching congressional districts completely and implementing proportional representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×