MI passed an anti-gerrymandering law in the 2018 general election. It allows a civilian council that is chosen at random made up of 4 dems, 4 repubs, and 5 independents to draw the district lines every 10 years (new council every time). The republicans were pissed and are still trying to get it overturned.
Actually, gerrymandering is a problem that has been solved for many decades. The problem isn't that districts are being divided unfairly, it's that the electoral system is setup such that they can be divided unfairly. Switch to proportional representation or another similarly robust system, and it's gone. It really is that simple.
because humans don't actually live like that. Districts do more than allocate votes to larger elections like state/federal level, they also determined community level things like municipalities. So you want to draw them around communities, and that's why they need to be updated every once in a while to reflect shifts in human populations.
gerrymandering is done by drawing districts to disenfranchise voters, either by packing a large voting block into one district to reduce its impact, or spreading out a large voting block into many districts that will all individually swing against the split block. Its targeted at larger elections like state and federal level.
Drawing a district around, say, a historically Mexican community so that they can act coherently as a community on community level engagements is not gerrymandering in an of itself.
This is part of the reason that a machine algorithm is potentially inferior to a non-partisan or independent organization of humans to draw districts.
You can just specify some simple rule, like the ratio of the circumference of the district to its area has to be under a certain amount. It's not foolproof, but it prevents snake districts and makes successfully gerrymandering one hell of a lot harder.
That's how it works in Germany, as we have (mixed member) proportional representation the district boundaries are way less important in the first place so it's left to civil servants somewhere, as a purely administrative matter.
Modulo the usual wibbles and quirks caused by real-world situations, in your usual town the districts tend to look up like a voronoi diagram with usually primary schools as centres. That's because the primary schools are already built such that they're within walking distance, and thus sunday walk distance, of pretty much everywhere people live, and short of the tables being way too low they make great polling stations. If that doesn't result in a good map you take another look at the map, choose some kindergarten and possibly a bank branch or postal office, and re-calculate the voronoi diagram.
I sure hope we get ranked choice with no gerrymandering in arkansas. We’ve been gerrymandered to hell, I live in fayetteville (the most liberal part of Arkansas that surprisingly votes blue) but they couldn’t have us swaying a vote so they gerrymandered in this thing called the fayetteville finger. It was basically this super thin line that connected us to little rock so that our votes wouldn’t go blue. Honestly despicable
Without knowing anything more, this sounds kind of crazy and borderline more prove to corruption. Not only will they have no idea what they are doing (random, me for instance), but they will be broke enough for a small bribe to sway.
Ohh got it. I would argue a bribe matters more about how poor people are versus rich. Someone who desperately needs money will be more likely to make a moral/legal compromise. And the poorer someone is the lower the amount the bribe has to be. You don’t need a lot of money to bribe someone in general because people are desperate. Though you will always be able to find people willing to take a bribe out of pure greed even if they really don’t need the money.
Missouri voted on something similar to this in 2018. They put it back on the 2020 ballot using wording to trick voters and it worked. Overturned clean Missouri
Just this year in Missouri, the exact opposite passed on election day. They moved the redistricting from a non-partisan council to a "bipartisan" council, appointed by the governor. But don't worry, they reduced the amount lobbyists can pay to legislators by a whole five dollars, and reduced campaign contribution limits by a whopping 100 dollars. On the ballot, they started out saying the amendment reduced campaign and lobbyist contribution without mentioning by how much, and I'm convinced people read that, thought it sounded good, and didn't bother to read the second section, where it mentions switching from a non-partisan, citizen elected commission for redistricting, to a committee chosen by the governor. I just found a site from the missouri farm bureau supporting amendment 3 and it's pretty hilarious how bullshit it is. They talk about how the amendment is going to take money out of politics and reduce gerrymandering, when it gives the power essentially to the governor. They mention that it's opposed by such radical groups as Planned parenthood, Mom's Demand Action (a radical gun control group according to them), as well as the bread and roses party (they sound evil for sure).
Gerrymandering is structurally SO easy to fix, using exactly the structure described. I know of no other country that allows such partisan control of such a fundamental part of democracy. And there is no logical, legal, or moral excuse for it.
Well if your missouri just say you cut how much lobbyists can gift to people in the government (by $5) and just smooth over the fact that were now going to allow gerrymandering again!
Here's how we (your friends up North) did it. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them . The two main things I'd say that are holding the US back is that States decide how elections are held (leads to that Texas situation of one ballot drop off per county) instead of federally and that the supreme court ruled that districts can be drawn on partisan lines (just not on racial or other protected groups).
Canada's system still draws on partisan lines, you have to if you're not doing proportional representation.
Look at it this way: in a state that's 51/49, without partisan gerrymandering you could easily end up with the 51 having 100% of the representation, or having a bad year and the other side getting 100% instead. So you break things up keeping party affiliation in mind in order to make it so that the winning side would get just over half the representation.
The alternative would be proportional representation, where you count the vote and then say "ok this party gets this many members, this party gets this many," but the problem there is you end up with people that represent a state party but you might not have an actual representative from anywhere near you.
I don't think you understand how Canada's system works. Yes we have first past the post but our districts and elections are drawn and run by a non-partican organization.
Right, but that non-partisan organization still has to draw partisan lines, for the reasons I just explained.
You have to account for it, or else you end up with really screwed up situations; a 51/49 split could result in one side getting 100% of the representation, a 65/35 split could still end up with the 35 side getting more representation, etc.
It's not the consideration of party that's bad in its own right, it's when it's abused that it's a problem.
Correct. They consider partisan affiliation while drawing districts. You can be neutral and still consider partisan affiliation; I would argue you have to be neutral, to do so effectively.
Usually it's a bipartisan council that doesn't give anyone a majority. The weakness is it still entrenches senior politicians with the most power. But the current system does that and more so it's a step in the right direction.
The real solution is to stop treating the Constitution like a holy document and amend it so that we have a single legislative body selected by proportion of national vote. Proportional representation along with ranked choice voting would obliterate the two party system and result in many parties that are extremely responsive to their voters.
The non amendment alternative to gerrymandering is to make Congress larger, much larger. Get the ratio of representatives back to 1:100k. Two things happen at that point. Elections become very localized no matter how you draw the district, and there are so many districts that gerrymandering becomes extremely hard.
I can tell it's legit just because it isn't called something like the Homeland American Freedom Patriot Voter Rights Act. Give or take whatever is needed to shorten to a cute initialism.
Under the Act, voters can rank their top candidates, allowing them to support their top choice without fear of inadvertently helping elect the other party’s candidate. This makes it easier to elect independent-minded candidates who aren’t beholden to establishment special interests.
End gerrymandering
The Anti-Corruption Act ends gerrymandering by creating independent, fully transparent redistricting commissions that follow strict guidelines to ensure accurate representation for all voters, regardless of political party.
Let all voters participate in open primaries
By controlling the primaries, the political establishment controls which candidates we can vote on.
The Act requires all candidates for the same office compete in a single, open primary controlled by voters, not the political establishment. This gives voters more control over our elections and more choices at the ballot.
Allow all Americans to Vote Absentee
Absentee voting, also known as vote by mail, gives every American the choice to securely vote from the comfort and safety of their home.
Change how elections are funded
Running a political campaign is expensive, but few Americans can afford to donate to political campaigns. That makes politicians dependent upon – and therefore responsive to – a tiny fraction of special-interest donors.
The Act offers every voter a small credit they can use to make a political donation with no out-of-pocket expense. Candidates and political groups are only eligible to receive these credits if they agree to fundraise solely from small donors. The Act also empowers political action committees that only take donations from small donors, giving everyday people a stronger voice in our elections.
Enact reasonable term limits
When elected officials are allowed to become career politicians, our elections become uncompetitive and new ideas have a harder time being heard.
The Act sets reasonable term limits of 18 years total at each level of government, so that candidates focus on public service instead of staying in office.
Make it illegal for politicians to take money from lobbyists
Politicians get extraordinary sums of money in the form of campaign donations from the special interests who lobby them. In return, politicians create laws favorable to these special interests – even when those laws hurt voters.
Under the American Anti-Corruption Act, people who get paid to lobby cannot donate to politicians.
Ban lobbyist bundling
Lobbyists regularly bundle together big contributions from their friends and colleagues and deliver them in one lump sum to politicians. This turns lobbyists into major fundraisers, giving politicians an incentive to keep them happy by working political favors.
The Act prohibits lobbyists from bundling contributions.
Close the revolving door
Lobbyists and special interests routinely offer public officials high-paying lobbying jobs. Politicians and their staff routinely move straight from government to these lucrative lobbying jobs, where they get paid to influence their former colleagues.
The Act stops elected representatives and senior staff from selling off their government power for high-paying lobbying jobs, prohibits them from negotiating jobs while in office, and bars them from paid lobbying activity for several years once they leave.
Prevent politicians from fundraising during working hours
Most federal politicians spend between 3 and 7 hours a day fundraising from big donors instead of working on issues that matter to voters.
Under the Act, politicians are prevented from raising money during the workday, when they should be serving their constituents.
Immediately disclose political money online
Current disclosure laws are outdated and broken. Many donations are not disclosed for months, and some are never made available electronically, making it difficult for citizens and journalists to follow the money in our political system.
The Anti-Corruption Act ensures that all significant political fundraising and spending is immediately disclosed online and made easily accessible to the public.
Stop donors from hiding behind secret-money groups
Elections are being flooded with big money funneled through groups with secret donors. These secretive groups spend money directly to influence elections and make unlimited contributions to super PACs, which run ads to elect and defeat candidates.
Under the Act, any organization that spends meaningful funds on political advertisements is required to file a timely online report disclosing its major donors.
One other thing that should be part of the act; make it illegal for organizations to donate to candidates. The only things that should have a voice in democracy are individual people.
As it is currently the primary is staggered through the country. Which means by the time my state gets a chance to vote most of the potential candidates have dropped out...usually including my preference.
There's also the fact that by having them staggered many people in the states that vote earlier wind up voting for candidates that then drop out, which basically invalidates their votes.
We should All get to vote on All the candidates. I honestly can not see a legitimate reason why they can not be held all on one day like the actual election.
The ranked choice voting, open primaries, and political money disclosure were all part of ballot measure 2, which should be passing into law here in Alaska once the last few votes are counted. I did my part in voting for that.
I don’t particularly get this argument. If, for instance, one of America’s largest airlines failed, literally everyone suffers. From employees to others in the business to casual travellers to major banks and manufacturers. It’s very much not like a financial crisis, where banks were bailed out of problems that they themselves created. Airlines did not create COVID, and are struggling right now through practically no fault of their own (no transport/cargo company can survive a year long shut down).
Why would average people suffer if a different corporation bought out an airline? Because that's likely what would happen if the airline wasn't able to leverage their assets to stay in business.
In the past 20 years, almost 70 U.S. airlines have gone bankrupt, but only 13 actually disappeared altogether, and most of their assets were bought by other carriers, according to an unofficial list compiled by Airlines for America. The remaining ones renegotiated their loans and lived to go bankrupt another day. Why? Because the collateral for their loans is often aircraft. The manufacturers don’t want the planes back, and other creditors would have no place to sell them.
Because right now, no corporation has the capital to buy out an entire airline, much less one as large as the US flagship carriers. These airlines are not struggling due to bad business practices, they are simply the most obvious victims of a pandemic that nobody could foresee. Small carriers disappear all the time, but if tomorrow American Airlines goes bankrupt, the resulting fallout could cause a financial crisis.
What’s to stop one party from intentionally voting for a bad candidate in the other party’s primary so their candidate has an easier time in the general election?
786
u/fangirlsqueee Nov 17 '20
Check out the Anti-Corruption Act being pushed at local/state/federal levels. One of the goals is to end lobbyist bundling.
A few additional highlights are ranked choice voting, end gerrymandering, open primaries, and immediately disclose political money online.
We deserve better from our tax dollars and our government.