Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Just fucking end first past the post already!
Stop treating the symptom and rip out the cause.
∆∆∆ This guy fucks
Seriously though it is so incredibly important to nuke FPTP from orbit. We're never going to get measurable change without it.
I get how this works in the senate. How does it work in the house?
yes end fptp, but changing from fptp doesn’t stop gerrymandering
Why not?
fptp is about choice of candidate and counting who comes out on top in an area, where gerrymandering is about geography… you can still pack and crack an STV/RCV system… ie if everyone is able to and does vote for the candidate they want (rather then defensive voting etc) then you can still make a single district have 100% of 1 candidates votes and another 2 with 51% of another
in australia we have an STV system, but we also have independent bodies that draw the district boundaries and various things to stop gerrymandering
I seem to be missing something here...
If I understand FPTP correctly, it means that only the majority holder of votes in a single district gets full representation of that district, right?
So if A gets 51% and B gets 49%, A gets to represent the entire district, right?
Without FPTP, the district result doesn't matter at all, since it is the total number of votes that matter, not a designated winner of a district.
So since the result of a district election doesn't matter for the end result of the election, there is little point to spend time and resources to gerrymander anymore.
Have I understood the issue correctly?
your interpretation of FPTP is mostly correct however it’s a plurality that wins, even if it’s not 50%: if there are 3 candidates, you’d only the highest vote total out of all the candidates to win (which could be as low as 34%)
what you’re talking about though is representative vs proportional systems… in representative systems a group of people directly elects their representative (like in geographic districts, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be geographic: this can be seen in some cases where minorities are codified and those groups elect a minority representative), where in proportional systems your vote goes towards the government as a whole
i think this is far less of a black and white good vs bad than fptp vs stv/rcv/irv:
fptp voting counting leads to huge issues which force a 2 party system that will never represent the majority of people (through things like defensive voting, people vote less for the candidate they want and more for the candidate they think is most likely to win who isn’t the candidate they most don’t want), and recent american politics has shown that fptp also leads to much more polarising politics (in RCV systems candidates care about their 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice votes so they have to be as likeable as possible: they don’t want to come off as bullying they 3rd place candidate, because their voters really do matter)
proportional vs representative is more nuanced though… with representative systems you have someone who is there to represent your group specifically, rather a kind of often nebulous set of ideals… proportional meanwhile you do get more philosophically aligned candidates, but they always have to form coalitions with other parties (nobody has a majority: proportional governments are formed by lots of small parties/candidates) which means you can never really hold them to what they say: they’ll have to compromise a lot, and the government is very much sometimes beholden to the whims of marginal groups who hold the power (this has been happening a lot in europe at the moment where coalitions break down)
so in australia’s case we have a bit of a combination: for our house of representatives we use IRV/representative… we have districts, and we elect a representative, and those representatives form a government and the leader of the majority party is the prime minister. we also have our senate which is proportional (but still IRV), so they have a lot more small parties - including some far right shitbags
note though i am using RCV, STV, and IRV interchangeably but i believe they are different forms of RCV (and yes, i also believe RCV is both the category and a specific implementation). i think our ballot counting is IRV, but that’s based on some high school civics stuff so it may actually be another method and the teacher just said something generic
Without FPTP, the district result doesn’t matter at all, since it is the total number of votes that matter, not a designated winner of a district.
That depends entirely on what FPTP is replaced with. Any system with local representitives can be gerrymandered to reduce the representation of certain groups, with the exception of MMP where you can still gerrymander but it doesn't affect representation. That includes ranked choice, approval voting, etc. That's not to say these aren't better, of course with better local representation the effectiveness of gerrymandering is reduced, but it is not eliminated. The only way to eliminate gerrymandering is with a proportional system.
that’s largely correct, but there are multiple parts to the ballot system: FPTP, RCV, etc are means of counting ballots, but another part is proportional vs representative
you can have representative with RCV (that’s what australia is)
Yes that's true, systems like FPTP and IRV (as used in australia) are single-winner and thus require a local representation system, but you could use ranked-choice in a proportional system.
You can have ten Republican majority districts and one Democrat majority district. Then whatever voting system you have doesn't matter. To get rid of potential gerrymandering, you can treat the whole state as one district and have multiple winners.
This is so fucking hilarious. MAGA tried to illegally game the system, and brag about it at the same time, so California and others tried to match them, only legally.
Now the illegal MAGA plan gets shut down, while the legal Democratic plan moves forward. It looks like the Dems have stolen a MAGA plan, and improved on it, and will now beat MAGA with their own plan. Every single Blue state should do this. If suppression is good for MAGA, let's see how they like discovering that they created a two edged sword.
More of this, PLEASE.
California's prop 50 won't happen if Texas' plan doesn't happen. Prop 50 specifically states that it's a response to Texas's illegal gerrymandering attempts and is exacted only of Texas' attempt is not stopped
Actually, they removed the trigger language from Prop 50 shortly before the vote. So it is actually going more like what the person you're responding to had said.
lol
Nice. So the 5 blue districts we just added in California aren't just canceling out those red seats, they're just adding 5 blue ones.
afaik those laws only kick in if texas goes through with their plan
I think that was in the original text but was removed before passage because Texas has already passed their gerrymander
lame. mitch mcconnell taught us better
playing by the rules as usual :( it should have been a punishment - not just an equaliser… there’s no reason for them not to try again next time
Now Illinois, Minnesota, and New York should step up.
Red states have been shamelessly gerrymandering for so long, that they have very few options for improvement left. The only reason they see a window now is because SCOTUS has shown a willingness to accept race-based suppression, which they wouldn't before. But they been so close for so long, that their moves are still limited.
But Dems have remained stupidly committed to fair play all along, despite it not being returned. So they have lots of potential to gain some seats and deny other seats to MAGA, and the Dems should exploit that potential RUTHLESSLY. The MAGAs surely would, if the courts would let them. Why should the Dems protect MAGAs from themselves, especially since THEY started it? This was a fight they started, and Ds should finish it, Ender-style.
~~California’s law is only Mutually Assured Destruction. It applies in response to the gerrymandering of other states.~~
The only provision in the California law that makes it reasonable is that it’s time limited.
They pulled the reciprocity clause out at the last minute after Texas passed it's bill.
Womp womp.
Its probably for the better. Short of a clause triggered by eliminating the congressional district system entirely in favor of proportional voting, the idea of "counter-gerrymandering" clause is a major legal hazard'
The supreme court, for instance, might zero in on such a clause and cynically say California is 'violating the 10th amendment rights of other states' instead of having to find a way to strike it out under 14th amendment provisions (an amendment which the current supreme court hates)
This is not true. That language was removed from the bill before it passed
A low-key hilarious artifact of the prohibition of racial gerrymandering and acceptability of political gerrymandering is that Republican-gerrymandered maps are pretty much ALWAYS gonna be more overtly racially biased than Democratic-gerrymandered maps.
By which I mean: staunchly Republican supporting areas tends to lean heavily white, while staunchly Democratic supporting areas tend to be much more cosmopolitan and racially heterogeneous.
The thing is that, afaik, coincidentally gerrymandering by race isn't sufficient to get the map thrown out. It has to be intentionally gerrymandered by race, with evidence to support such an assertion.
And the incredible thing is that Republicans can't keep their damned racist mouths shut, and they keep incriminating themselves by either saying the quiet part out loud or getting so specific with their gerrymandering that it's no longer plausible that it's just a coincidence.
They'd get away with it if they were smarter (but then, if they were smarter they wouldn't be racists)
It’s so depressing how dumb most people running the show nowadays are, even if you put aside the overt malice
Which is great until SCOTUS finishes fully gutting the Voting Rights Act next year.
they're are waiting when nobody is noticing, and they will pounce and repeal the SAME SEX Marriage first.
thats why they are get all upset with CRT too, its racial legal discrimination against POCs , more to agains tblacks. eventhough this is a legal concept taught in grad school.
You just gotta love the naked corruption in front of your eyes and then still saying how free you are
DEI redistricting LMAO