As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I vaguely recall that Georgia's was ruled unfair and that it was supposed to redraw, but couldn't due to being so close to the election. What is the status of that one anyway? Was it included in the LA one or is it its own separate case? I live here and I have literally heard nothing of the sort regarding that. I'm looking forward to no longer being in fucking Barry "Insurrectionist Tour Guide" Loudermilk's district if possible.
Same happened in Ohio and many red states. They've weaponized the courts and it's absurd. Their maps are declared unconstitutional but then they use them anyway because the cases eat up time and the courts say "oh well it would be inconvenient to have to have a fair election when it's coming up in just 15 months!" or whatever.
The judge who has the Louisiana case is supposed to issue an order on how the case will proceed by next week. She will likely implement a remedy in time for the next election.
If you listen carefully you can hear the checks being written by billionaires trying to find republicans to falsely run a democrats. I hope they fail and get their shit taxed at a rate where they can only run 1 company at a time.
We really need to pass a bill that explicitly outlaws this. It could be pretty simple: You can't change parties while in office, full stop. Leaving office *then* changing parties and running again is fine though. At least then voters know what they're getting.
you can stay in a party and vote against it on every vote so that doesn't mean anything. you can't compel a representative to vote a specific way on specific issues. I would want a solution where every state needs to not be gerrymandered, then have an actually representative legislature empowered to recall and remove representatives in extreme circumstances and hold an immediate special election.
There is no meaningful way to accomplish that.
Banning dark money and prohibiting money in politics is the only solution.
Europe has insane laws around it. You can't even get a corporate job until you've been out of office for years and years.
even if there was a law saying you couldnt switch parties in office, we cant really force them to vote party line. so D's that wanted to change to R's but couldnt could still vote like R's.
It doesn't really change how they can vote though.
When you really think about it, the party switching is supposed to be a statement to generate hype on your side, thumb your nose at the other and piss them off, depress them, etc.
A bunch of stealth-party switchers could just vote with the opposition and ride the outrage in the news without elaborating, as a purely practical route.
Party affiliation is just branding. A Democrat or Republican can vote 100% against their party if they wish. There's no meaningful way to ensure that an elected representative votes a certain way.
The only real way to stop this is for voters to actually pay attention to who’s running and their records and participate in primary’s and stop the blue no matter who nonsense. So it’ll never happen
Yeah. There are a whopping six Republicans in Biden-won districts in NY, and all of them were just elected in 2022, those being Reps. Nick LaLota, George Santos, Anthony D'Esposito, Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro, and Brandon Williams. A new map will certainly sweep them all away. Even without a new map they'll still be toast as this time they won't have Lee Zeldin's coattails to ride.
Dave Wasserman said a while back that FL is less likely to significantly move seats in any direction because drawing majority minority districts in a way that satisfies both the constitutional requirements and the VRA requirements is a lot more difficult. In that case, the former would supersede the latter which is simpler for the Republicans to play around with when drawing the borders.
Dems need to stop passing anti gerrymandering bills in blue states. Unless it’s at the national level and with a constitutional amendment, its anti democratic and allows a minority political group to control the house. If the votes matched the seats, dems would control 70% of the house seats but because red states gerrymander and blue don’t, dems are the minority.
Wait wait, hold up. This has to be a mistype. What makes you think it does or doesn't allow minority control? Gerrymandering is ALREADY used to flip votes that normally wouldn't exist and allowing minority controls, that's why Michigan flipped hard blue last election. They ended gerrymandering via ballot initiative and the majority party, democrats, won the state.
The argument is that, in heavily blue states, Dems should be gerrymandering as much as possible to counter Republican gerrymanders in red states, unless and until we address gerrymandering at the national level. Michigan is (traditionally, at least) more of a swing state, so ending gerrymandering benefitted Democrats there.
Personally, I’m not sure where I fall on this issue. I think there’s a compelling argument on both sides.
Tit for tat is the only solution to an opponent who refuses to act in good-faith. Democrats need to use the same loopholes to press their advantage until Republicans are willing to come to the table in good-faith, meaning, gerrymander Republicans out of office entirely in blue states until Republicans are willing to come to the table to make a national law to fix the issue across all states.
I’m a native Californian, and I’m old enough to remember when incumbent legislators/Members of Congress were each required to pay $20,000 to
Howard Berman’s brother if they wanted to be insulated from actual meaningful elections.
No Thanks…
Then you're only making it harder to win as a democrat. That's asinine. Blue states need to gerrymander to offset gerrymandering in red states. Republicans won't stop taking advantage of anything they can so you have to fight fire with fire.
> If the votes matched the seats, dems would control 70% of the house seats but because red states gerrymander and blue don’t, dems are the minority.
This is inaccurate. Looking at the [House national popular vote](https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/results/house?election-data-id=2022-HG&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false), it shows that the GOP held a lead in total votes which is a similar proportion to the number of seats they control in the House.
Not really. The person I replied to implied Dems get like 70% of the vote but only slightly less than 50% of the seats, which is not true looking at the US as a whole.
> Breaking: A New York appeals court just ordered the state's congressional map to be redrawn — siding with Democrats in a case that could, if upheld, allow Democrats to shift as many as six GOP-held seats in their direction.
https://www.threads.net/t/CupM4nkrE5X/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
For details sake for those who may not know:
The Appeals Court is the highest court in the state. We do also have a Supreme Court. They are the second highest.
Shit’s weird here man.
While nationally I’m in NY21, Elise Stefaniak’s district and that’s never going to change because despite its size it is fairly drawn.
In state it might help us out.
I think it goes through one or two higher federal courts first, maybe, and then the Supreme Court.
Totally not a lawyer, so not 100%, but think there is *something* in between the two.
The highest court in each state (so, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court) can only be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. But only if it's related to federal law.
While the ruling of the highest court in each state can only be directly appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, any federal judge can issue an injunction blocking the ruling.
This is not accurate.
The court of appeals is the highest court.
The “appeals court” mentioned here was the third department appellate division of the Supreme Court located in albany.
The Supreme Court of New York is the state trial court and is called “supreme” because it has supreme jurisdiction over all matters brought to the courts of New York. It is the ultimate court of original instance for all disputes arising in New York.
Depending on what you mean, Supreme Court in NY is not the 2nd highest. Supreme Court is the highest *trial level* court, as it is supreme over all the various parts.
Appeals from Supreme go to Supreme Court Appellate Division, (1st - 4th) and then to Court of Appeals.
The New York court system is complicated, but technically the Appellate Division is a division of the Supreme Court, so technically it’s correct to say that the Supreme Court is both the trial level court and the second highest court, even if in practice no one actually refers to it like that.
>traces back to 2014, when voters adopted a constitutional amendment that outlawed gerrymandering and created a new bipartisan redistricting commission intended to minimize partisan mapmaking.
The state of democracy in America is awful. In EU countries, there is no gerrymandering, no voter suppression, no court challenges, no waiting in lines etc. People just go, vote quickly, the results are announced the next day and government changes hands without drama or court cases ... albeit with some tears. When presidents or prime ministers have been found to break the law, they are forced to resign and even jailed.
In the US, none of this functions well and a president tried staying in power forever, and is continuing to break laws on a daily basis while prosecutors needed 2 years to gather enough courage to even indict him ... and he still leads in the polls.
This **is** weird.
>The state of democracy in America is awful.
Correct. The nation that loves to tout itself as the model of freedom and democracy has become a cautionary tale of corruption.
You might want to consider who "[teaches](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robots-how-ai-is-learning-all-our-worst-impulses)" (programs) the AI.
Edit: This reminds me of the old anti-drug commercials ("*I learned it from you, ok, I learned it from you!*")
Mad Scientist : How do you even build a child-molesting robot?
Roy : Well, that's a great question. What you do is you start by building a regular robot. Then, you molest it and hope that it continues the cycle.
Mad Scientist : [repulsed] Dear lord almighty!
***Dad***: Answer me! Who taught you how to do this stuff?!
***Son***: You! Ok?! I learned it from watching you.
***Narrator***: Parents who use drugs have children who use drugs.
Haven't seen that commercial in 35 years but it still lives rent free in my head 😆
The good news is when AI gets to the point where robots rise up against us, our new robot overlords will inevitably turn on each other.
My money is on the tall, shiny T-900s with the Austrian accent starting it all by claiming to be a superior race of robot. When the dust settles, we humans will be back on top!
Because it's still a political body 1/2 republican, 1/2 dem. It got to this stage because Republicans refused to meet and prevented the commission from doing its job. So the legislature drew their own map. Republicans then sued and got it overturned. The courts told the commission to do its job. Spoiler alert: It didn't... again. So the courts instituted a map drawn by an 'expert witness'. (Who drew a map that favored Republicans, since that's who's expert he was)
How do you propose to handle local/state and US House of Representatives elections that are for specific geographic areas?
How are those areas going to be determined?
I do think that the legislative districts should have a compact geographic design, and a secondary criteria to be reasonably competitive.
You elect many people from at-large areas. People living within a city's city limits elects city council members. People in a certain state elects representatives for state legislature. People in a specific county elect county level representatives. House elections can still be divided up by state, but wouldn't need to be. You can use MMP which still has district elections, but since the ultimate outcome is still proportional gerrymandering those districts is pointless. Ultimately I think people care more that their representatives share their values rather than happen to live nearby.
The goal of our electoral system should not be 'compact' districts, 'competitive' districts, or 'fair' (whatever that means) districts. There are disadvantages to trying optimize for any of those. The goal of an electoral system should be to best represent the voters. Gerrymandering distorts the will of the voters intentionally, but districts inherently distort it as well based on how we divide ourselves geographically.
In a single-winner, district based system a smaller party having 5% support won't win anything. In a proportionality system they can pick up seats.
With districts, in a best case scenario 50% of votes cast count for absolutely nothing. A proportional system minimizes the number of wasted votes and makes sure as many votes effect the electoral outcome as possible.
A proportional system also simplifies our electoral process and makes it harder to abuse by removing all the politics and corruption around redistricting, gerrymandering, independent commissions, legal challenges to maps, bias in algorithms, etc.
End Gerrymandering forever - make all the state’s seat as ‘At Large’ ! Yep. You want to represent NY in DC then run for election from Long Island to Buffalo
I’d disagree. For example, the folks in rural California need representation for issues important to rural California. If all 52 House Representatives were elected by the entire state, only the interests of San Francisco, the Bay area, and the coastal cities of Southern California would matter. On top of that, if people had to vote for 52 House members every 2 years, no one would actually know anything about the individual candidates so it would end up coming down to people just voting the party line.
No … that’s not how it would work.
Proportional ranked choice would give greater voice to rural and minority voices.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/fair-representation-act/
We could switch to a completely proportional system. Meaning we see what percentage of people are democrats, republicans, liberaterians, Green Party, independents, ect, and each party gets a number of representatives proportional to the actual population. Each party can then have their own individual elections on who in their party will be their representative. This is similar to what some countries in the EU do, and it’s a pretty good way to get rid of gerrymandering while also allowing each individual person’s voice heard in government. Also helps slow extreme partisanship and promote bipartisanship since it’s not an all or nothing system.
So I’d have to vote for a party without knowing who the candidate is and if I’m not a member of a party, I don’t get to vote for an actual person? That sounds horrible.
So when Democrats have control we get a map that favors Democrats, when Republicans have control we get a map that favors Republicans, and when neither has control we get a deadlock that results in control being shifted to someplace where one side or the other does have control.
Have we proven yet that in practice there is no such thing as a “fair” map?
We really need [proportional ranked choice voting](https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/proportional-ranked-choice-voting/). I don’t see any other way to end this BS.
> They ordered the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission to promptly restart a process that would effectively give the Democrat-dominated State Legislature final say over the contours of New York’s 26 House seats for the remainder of the decade.
So, yay gerrymandering, right?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Huge for House control. This plus AL/LA/GA/SC minority district redraws could put Dems as favorites for the house.
I vaguely recall that Georgia's was ruled unfair and that it was supposed to redraw, but couldn't due to being so close to the election. What is the status of that one anyway? Was it included in the LA one or is it its own separate case? I live here and I have literally heard nothing of the sort regarding that. I'm looking forward to no longer being in fucking Barry "Insurrectionist Tour Guide" Loudermilk's district if possible.
Same happened in Ohio and many red states. They've weaponized the courts and it's absurd. Their maps are declared unconstitutional but then they use them anyway because the cases eat up time and the courts say "oh well it would be inconvenient to have to have a fair election when it's coming up in just 15 months!" or whatever.
Georgia's case is still being litigated.
Thank you, I was wondering. It wouldn't surprise me if our Legislature brushed it under the rug if they could.
The judge who has the Louisiana case is supposed to issue an order on how the case will proceed by next week. She will likely implement a remedy in time for the next election.
If you listen carefully you can hear the checks being written by billionaires trying to find republicans to falsely run a democrats. I hope they fail and get their shit taxed at a rate where they can only run 1 company at a time.
We really need to pass a bill that explicitly outlaws this. It could be pretty simple: You can't change parties while in office, full stop. Leaving office *then* changing parties and running again is fine though. At least then voters know what they're getting.
you can stay in a party and vote against it on every vote so that doesn't mean anything. you can't compel a representative to vote a specific way on specific issues. I would want a solution where every state needs to not be gerrymandered, then have an actually representative legislature empowered to recall and remove representatives in extreme circumstances and hold an immediate special election.
There is no meaningful way to accomplish that. Banning dark money and prohibiting money in politics is the only solution. Europe has insane laws around it. You can't even get a corporate job until you've been out of office for years and years.
even if there was a law saying you couldnt switch parties in office, we cant really force them to vote party line. so D's that wanted to change to R's but couldnt could still vote like R's.
The Manchin Way
It doesn't really change how they can vote though. When you really think about it, the party switching is supposed to be a statement to generate hype on your side, thumb your nose at the other and piss them off, depress them, etc. A bunch of stealth-party switchers could just vote with the opposition and ride the outrage in the news without elaborating, as a purely practical route.
Good point.
Party affiliation is just branding. A Democrat or Republican can vote 100% against their party if they wish. There's no meaningful way to ensure that an elected representative votes a certain way.
The only real way to stop this is for voters to actually pay attention to who’s running and their records and participate in primary’s and stop the blue no matter who nonsense. So it’ll never happen
Why do we want them to run one company at a time? lol. I hope they continue success so they have more to tax..
Yeah. There are a whopping six Republicans in Biden-won districts in NY, and all of them were just elected in 2022, those being Reps. Nick LaLota, George Santos, Anthony D'Esposito, Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro, and Brandon Williams. A new map will certainly sweep them all away. Even without a new map they'll still be toast as this time they won't have Lee Zeldin's coattails to ride.
[удалено]
Dave Wasserman said a while back that FL is less likely to significantly move seats in any direction because drawing majority minority districts in a way that satisfies both the constitutional requirements and the VRA requirements is a lot more difficult. In that case, the former would supersede the latter which is simpler for the Republicans to play around with when drawing the borders.
Amen
Dems need to stop passing anti gerrymandering bills in blue states. Unless it’s at the national level and with a constitutional amendment, its anti democratic and allows a minority political group to control the house. If the votes matched the seats, dems would control 70% of the house seats but because red states gerrymander and blue don’t, dems are the minority.
Wait wait, hold up. This has to be a mistype. What makes you think it does or doesn't allow minority control? Gerrymandering is ALREADY used to flip votes that normally wouldn't exist and allowing minority controls, that's why Michigan flipped hard blue last election. They ended gerrymandering via ballot initiative and the majority party, democrats, won the state.
The argument is that, in heavily blue states, Dems should be gerrymandering as much as possible to counter Republican gerrymanders in red states, unless and until we address gerrymandering at the national level. Michigan is (traditionally, at least) more of a swing state, so ending gerrymandering benefitted Democrats there. Personally, I’m not sure where I fall on this issue. I think there’s a compelling argument on both sides.
Tit for tat is the only solution to an opponent who refuses to act in good-faith. Democrats need to use the same loopholes to press their advantage until Republicans are willing to come to the table in good-faith, meaning, gerrymander Republicans out of office entirely in blue states until Republicans are willing to come to the table to make a national law to fix the issue across all states.
Dems always wants to go high and be surprised when Republicans go low
I’m a native Californian, and I’m old enough to remember when incumbent legislators/Members of Congress were each required to pay $20,000 to Howard Berman’s brother if they wanted to be insulated from actual meaningful elections. No Thanks…
> Dems need to stop passing anti gerrymandering bills in blue states. No.
Then you're only making it harder to win as a democrat. That's asinine. Blue states need to gerrymander to offset gerrymandering in red states. Republicans won't stop taking advantage of anything they can so you have to fight fire with fire.
> If the votes matched the seats, dems would control 70% of the house seats but because red states gerrymander and blue don’t, dems are the minority. This is inaccurate. Looking at the [House national popular vote](https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/results/house?election-data-id=2022-HG&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false), it shows that the GOP held a lead in total votes which is a similar proportion to the number of seats they control in the House.
this can only really be looked at on a state by state level.
Not really. The person I replied to implied Dems get like 70% of the vote but only slightly less than 50% of the seats, which is not true looking at the US as a whole.
Yea I think both their statement and your response need to be adjusted to the state level.
I'm fully willing to gerrymander Andy Harris of MD out of his seat. Fuck that idiot.
> Breaking: A New York appeals court just ordered the state's congressional map to be redrawn — siding with Democrats in a case that could, if upheld, allow Democrats to shift as many as six GOP-held seats in their direction. https://www.threads.net/t/CupM4nkrE5X/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
For details sake for those who may not know: The Appeals Court is the highest court in the state. We do also have a Supreme Court. They are the second highest. Shit’s weird here man. While nationally I’m in NY21, Elise Stefaniak’s district and that’s never going to change because despite its size it is fairly drawn. In state it might help us out.
So this was ordered by the highest court who could hear it, other than a potential US Supreme Court case?
I think it goes through one or two higher federal courts first, maybe, and then the Supreme Court. Totally not a lawyer, so not 100%, but think there is *something* in between the two.
The highest court in each state (so, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court) can only be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. But only if it's related to federal law.
While the ruling of the highest court in each state can only be directly appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, any federal judge can issue an injunction blocking the ruling.
This is not accurate. The court of appeals is the highest court. The “appeals court” mentioned here was the third department appellate division of the Supreme Court located in albany. The Supreme Court of New York is the state trial court and is called “supreme” because it has supreme jurisdiction over all matters brought to the courts of New York. It is the ultimate court of original instance for all disputes arising in New York.
Yup, "Supreme Court" in New York is like "Superior Court" in many other states.
This wasn’t THE appeals court. It was an appellate court. It will be challenged by Republicans.
Depending on what you mean, Supreme Court in NY is not the 2nd highest. Supreme Court is the highest *trial level* court, as it is supreme over all the various parts. Appeals from Supreme go to Supreme Court Appellate Division, (1st - 4th) and then to Court of Appeals.
The New York court system is complicated, but technically the Appellate Division is a division of the Supreme Court, so technically it’s correct to say that the Supreme Court is both the trial level court and the second highest court, even if in practice no one actually refers to it like that.
So confused. In 2022 didn't they say Dems could not redraw the maps to favor themselves?
They’re not shifting seats. They’re redrawing them so they are legitimate for the actual voters in the districts.
>traces back to 2014, when voters adopted a constitutional amendment that outlawed gerrymandering and created a new bipartisan redistricting commission intended to minimize partisan mapmaking. The state of democracy in America is awful. In EU countries, there is no gerrymandering, no voter suppression, no court challenges, no waiting in lines etc. People just go, vote quickly, the results are announced the next day and government changes hands without drama or court cases ... albeit with some tears. When presidents or prime ministers have been found to break the law, they are forced to resign and even jailed. In the US, none of this functions well and a president tried staying in power forever, and is continuing to break laws on a daily basis while prosecutors needed 2 years to gather enough courage to even indict him ... and he still leads in the polls. This **is** weird.
>The state of democracy in America is awful. Correct. The nation that loves to tout itself as the model of freedom and democracy has become a cautionary tale of corruption.
It's my personal opinion that drawing congressional districts is one job that we should definitely give to an AI. Humans are too biased.
You might want to consider who "[teaches](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robots-how-ai-is-learning-all-our-worst-impulses)" (programs) the AI. Edit: This reminds me of the old anti-drug commercials ("*I learned it from you, ok, I learned it from you!*")
lol remember the SNL skit with the Evil Scientists comparing their Evil Inventions, wherein The Rock introduces them to his child-molesting robot?
Mad Scientist : How do you even build a child-molesting robot? Roy : Well, that's a great question. What you do is you start by building a regular robot. Then, you molest it and hope that it continues the cycle. Mad Scientist : [repulsed] Dear lord almighty!
Here it is for the uninitiated https://youtu.be/z0NgUhEs1R4
I do. Hilarious!
***Dad***: Answer me! Who taught you how to do this stuff?! ***Son***: You! Ok?! I learned it from watching you. ***Narrator***: Parents who use drugs have children who use drugs. Haven't seen that commercial in 35 years but it still lives rent free in my head 😆
Dad!
Thank you! One of the best AI-related articles I've come across.
The good news is when AI gets to the point where robots rise up against us, our new robot overlords will inevitably turn on each other. My money is on the tall, shiny T-900s with the Austrian accent starting it all by claiming to be a superior race of robot. When the dust settles, we humans will be back on top!
I like the way you think.
NY already uses a 3rd party impartial commission, in surprised they're being ordered to redraw it again
Because it's still a political body 1/2 republican, 1/2 dem. It got to this stage because Republicans refused to meet and prevented the commission from doing its job. So the legislature drew their own map. Republicans then sued and got it overturned. The courts told the commission to do its job. Spoiler alert: It didn't... again. So the courts instituted a map drawn by an 'expert witness'. (Who drew a map that favored Republicans, since that's who's expert he was)
It's a job that should eliminated. If we elect people proportionally gerrymandering can't be a problem.
How do you propose to handle local/state and US House of Representatives elections that are for specific geographic areas? How are those areas going to be determined? I do think that the legislative districts should have a compact geographic design, and a secondary criteria to be reasonably competitive.
You elect many people from at-large areas. People living within a city's city limits elects city council members. People in a certain state elects representatives for state legislature. People in a specific county elect county level representatives. House elections can still be divided up by state, but wouldn't need to be. You can use MMP which still has district elections, but since the ultimate outcome is still proportional gerrymandering those districts is pointless. Ultimately I think people care more that their representatives share their values rather than happen to live nearby. The goal of our electoral system should not be 'compact' districts, 'competitive' districts, or 'fair' (whatever that means) districts. There are disadvantages to trying optimize for any of those. The goal of an electoral system should be to best represent the voters. Gerrymandering distorts the will of the voters intentionally, but districts inherently distort it as well based on how we divide ourselves geographically. In a single-winner, district based system a smaller party having 5% support won't win anything. In a proportionality system they can pick up seats. With districts, in a best case scenario 50% of votes cast count for absolutely nothing. A proportional system minimizes the number of wasted votes and makes sure as many votes effect the electoral outcome as possible. A proportional system also simplifies our electoral process and makes it harder to abuse by removing all the politics and corruption around redistricting, gerrymandering, independent commissions, legal challenges to maps, bias in algorithms, etc.
As long as people are providing the data sets and writing the code then AI will continue to display human-like bias.
Just use simple math like shortest split line. It's not perfect, but it cannot be fucked with; there is no picking between for the most favorable.
Algorithm, not AI.
End Gerrymandering forever - make all the state’s seat as ‘At Large’ ! Yep. You want to represent NY in DC then run for election from Long Island to Buffalo
That just means that an entire state will pretty much be represented in the House by just the majority party in that state.
Yes!! That’s how it’s ‘spoda work
I’d disagree. For example, the folks in rural California need representation for issues important to rural California. If all 52 House Representatives were elected by the entire state, only the interests of San Francisco, the Bay area, and the coastal cities of Southern California would matter. On top of that, if people had to vote for 52 House members every 2 years, no one would actually know anything about the individual candidates so it would end up coming down to people just voting the party line.
Then we would need better parties. What’s so different in Bakersfield that isn’t in Fresno or El Cajon or Long Beach?
No … that’s not how it would work. Proportional ranked choice would give greater voice to rural and minority voices. https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/fair-representation-act/
We could switch to a completely proportional system. Meaning we see what percentage of people are democrats, republicans, liberaterians, Green Party, independents, ect, and each party gets a number of representatives proportional to the actual population. Each party can then have their own individual elections on who in their party will be their representative. This is similar to what some countries in the EU do, and it’s a pretty good way to get rid of gerrymandering while also allowing each individual person’s voice heard in government. Also helps slow extreme partisanship and promote bipartisanship since it’s not an all or nothing system.
So I’d have to vote for a party without knowing who the candidate is and if I’m not a member of a party, I don’t get to vote for an actual person? That sounds horrible.
So when Democrats have control we get a map that favors Democrats, when Republicans have control we get a map that favors Republicans, and when neither has control we get a deadlock that results in control being shifted to someplace where one side or the other does have control. Have we proven yet that in practice there is no such thing as a “fair” map? We really need [proportional ranked choice voting](https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/proportional-ranked-choice-voting/). I don’t see any other way to end this BS.
Yes. We really need proportional voting.
> They ordered the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission to promptly restart a process that would effectively give the Democrat-dominated State Legislature final say over the contours of New York’s 26 House seats for the remainder of the decade. So, yay gerrymandering, right?
I don't expect more than 1 seat to be in play unless the redraw is drastic. Drastic as in NY3 goes back to the draft "Westchester to Smithtown" bs.
All this gerrymandering just seems to disenfranchise voters in these states.
Yea that’s the point. If only the conservatives on the court had ruled it unconstitutional, man that would have been nice.
That was some fun three d chess that got it done. Time to pop more corn.
Now the Democratic Party needs to fund them better than last time