Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well, yes, that's what currently happens, but it's a short-sighted solution. Republicans benefit more from gerrymandering than Democrats do, and they're better at it than Democrats. What Jovian is saying is that if they're smart, a Democratic federal government will realize that they'll gain more in the long run by outlawing gerrymandering.
The problem is that that encourages elected officials to ignore the individual districts and just do things that benefit the state as a whole. Now, that's not the worst outcome, but that's how you get things like the state or federal government dropping a giant factory next to some podunk town no one cares about. The town complains, but they don't have enough people to make anyone listen.
I say this every time the subject gets within artillery range, but I really think it would help to have a virtual congress. The various congresscritters live in their districts and just do their meetings and whatnot through Skype. It would improve internet infrastructure and cut down on them treating their districts like piggy banks.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.I doubt the Democrats will think in the long term. Half of the new Congress will be hardcore progressives, who will want to kick the Republicans in the balls, and will call anyone not in favor of their plans to gerrymander the shit out of the GOP as cowardly Neo Liberal shills who accept the "golden means fallacy." The other half will be the actual cowardly neo liberal shills, who are incapable of thinking of anything other than short term political gain.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.No. No it's not. Seriously, Jack, saying that Democrats are just either hardcore progressives who care about nothing but opposing Republicans or cowardly neoliberal shills is 100% bullshit. Cut it out.
Except that that's not what he means.
Furthermore, the Democratic center-left hasn't embraced the hard-leftists like the Republicans have embraced the hard-right. They've in fact refused to deal with anyone who's much further left than Bernie Sanders - you don't see anti-vaxxers, for example, anywhere near a Democratic candidacy, and the superdelegates won't be giving up their power any time soon (there's a reason Bernie was trying to force that confrontation, and now he's pissed because he doesn't get the fight that he wanted).
edited 22nd May '16 4:06:53 PM by Ramidel
Less strawmanning and more substituting cynicism for actual analysis. While the conclusion isn't wrong (I don't think it's likely to see a federal anti-gerrymandering law anytime soon), it's less because "politicians are evil, therefore everything they do is bad" and more the fact that there honestly isn't much political will to make it happen. Most people don't see gerrymandering as a huge problem, so it's not worth the time and effort for politicians to tackle the issue — especially when they know they're going to get an enormous amount of pushback from other politicians whose seats rely on gerrymandering.
Of course, that's why I prefaced the whole thing with "if they're smart". Getting rid of gerrymandering nationwide is a good long-term play for the Democrats, but they have to be willing to accept the short-term costs to do it, which I'm not convinced they are.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.They would need to be riding on a huge wave of popularity, a political movement with a wide grassroots base determined to get change now.
Now where might those people be...
edited 22nd May '16 4:08:09 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Banning gerrymandering is something that needs to be done as soon as possible, since it's well within the realm of possibility that the GOP could cease to be an effective opposition party at some point in the near future. Ideally, that would be followed by the formation of a new opposition party to the democrat's left in a few years time, but there's always a danger in that kind of scenario that America could end up a de facto One-Party State through methods which would include heavy ily gerrymandering electoral districts.
I really don't think Sanders' supporters are comparable to the Tea Party in the slightest. Some of them are unreasonable and quick to anger, but they're also young and have a lot to learn about politics. Meanwhile, the Tea Party is made up of people well into adulthood, who want the right to shoot people and be racist and homophobic.
Now where might those people be...
The thing that people forget is that yelling louder in support of your candidate doesn't make your vote count extra. If you've got a million diehard supporters that will follow you to the ends of the earth casting votes for you and the other guy's got a million and one half-assed "eh, I guess I'll vote for this guy" supporters casting votes for him, the other guy wins. Bernie's supporters may be more enthusiastic, but Clinton's are more numerous, and that's what counts on election day.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Mostly I meant Obama in 2008. He had a massive movement behind him. People who actually bought into his HOPE for CHANGE. He won on their backs. They were ready for anything. He told them to go home.
Retreat from Irak (2011) and Afghanistan (2014) would come much later than they expected, with a botched aftermath, as would Gitmo's closure
. The Affordable Care Act, while helpful, wasn't remotely the NHS-like revolution that they were hoping for.
He built a HUGE hype, and, while he delivered on a lot of his actual promises, he could have used that hype to live up to it.
As for enthusiasts not being numerous enough, the funny thing about them is that, if you give them a megaphone and leverage, they can punch much higher than their demographic weight. Indeed, if you want Tea Party comparisons, those folks are a minority among a minority, and yet they hold enough clout to shut down the government of the United States of America if you dare to ignore them.
It's not hostile, but it is disruptive.
edited 22nd May '16 4:59:27 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.In Obama's defense, half of the government threw itself against him to the point of being almost self-destructively contrarian.
Leviticus 19:34

Since it's a state law, not a federal one, no one can bring in the federal court system. If a Democratic congress passes a federal anti-gerrymandering law, then that would no longer be the case. That would mean that the Democrats couldn't gerrymander either, of course, but Republicans benefit more from gerrymandering than Democrats do, both because Republicans control more states and because demographics favor Democrats in general, meaning that fairly-drawn districts will be better for Democrats than they will be for Republicans. (Of course, both parties should be pushing for fair districts regardless of the political equation because unfairly drawn districts are bullshit, but realpolitick is a thing.)
edited 22nd May '16 1:43:28 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.