There's a narrative out there this insists that the only way that the GOP ever wins anything is because they've gerrymandered districts to ensue themselves wins. Conversely, the DFL does not and never has engaged in gerrymandering.
As an aside, from what I've seen most instances of gerrymandering are done in order to protect incumbents of both parties and to maintain at least some sort of rough balance of power.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/maryland-democrats-are-advancing-hideously-gerrymandered-congressional-map
Apparently, the Maryland DFL didn't get the memo that the DFL doesn't engage in partisan gerrymandering.
26 comments:
I've found the charge to be rather foolish. It would take a deeper dive than I've the time and patience to take, but my suspicion, based on common, ongoing behaviors of each party, is that Dem focus is always on getting and maintaining power...it's their driving motivation. Conversely, the Dems accuse the GOP of this very thing when the GOP seeks to restore sensibility and fairness after Dems have previously drawn up totally self-serving maps.
Both sides have gerrymandered. We need to put an end to this. Period.
https://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-gerrymandering/2018/03/08/f9d1a230-2241-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6
Do you agree with me that we should end partisan gerrymandering?
Do you agree with me (and I think the known data) that partisan gerrymandering has been done by both parties, but the GOP has done it more "effectively" and ruthlessly and thus, have a disproportionate voice thanks to this practice which should be ended?
Do you agree with me that, if 45% of the population agrees with more GOP-leaning policies and 55% more with Democratic-leaning policies, that in a rational and just nation, the Democrat ideas would be more represented?
Do you agree that, for instance, if some 55-75% of the nation is opposed to criminalizing abortion or supports gay folk being able to get married, that our policies should honor the will of the majority, in a rational free republic?
Yes, gerrymandering is something that should be ended. When people single out one side as the culprit, it simply makes them look foolish.
Gerrymandering to benefit incumbents or for partisan reasons should not happen.
No.
Not necessarily.
We don't have a democracy, or a "free republic". We have a representative republic to intended to prevent simple majority rule. I don"t think we should change our system which has worked reasonable well for over 200 years.
Are you really saying that if (for example) more than 75% of the population thought that abortion should be restricted, that you would support those restrictions?
Are you getting your numbers (% who support things) from opinion polls?
I like the idea of a free Republic as well. However, anytime that you have a minority that is able to force its will over against the majority, on issue after issue, that's going to be a problem and I do support taking actions to make that less likely.. I think it's unhealthy for a minority group to voice its will on the majority over and over. Especially if we're talking about basic human rights.
Craig... "Are you really saying that if (for example) more than 75% of the population thought that abortion should be restricted, that you would support those restrictions?
Are you getting your numbers (% who support things) from opinion polls?"
No. Human rights trump majority rule.
Yes.
Craig... "Are you getting your numbers (% who support things) from opinion polls?"
Allow me to clarify. On a nationwide basis, yes, poll after poll after poll after poll after poll after poll after poll after poll consistently shows that black people report racism and discrimination still impacting their lives. On top of that, It's nearly universally reported amongst black people when I talk to them or hear them talking in groups, in classes, in meetings, etc. It's a fairly consistent report and nearly universal, Which aligns with all these polls and surveys.
But you know this, too, right? Or do you live in some different circles where you don't see this reported all the time?
The question is whether or not all redistricting is "gerrymandering". I don't think so. I don't buy lefties insisting the GOP are the worse culprits regarding the latter, especially with their legendary history of electoral cheating. Populations change in size all the time. Whoever is in power gets to draw up the maps. It's how the maps are drawn which becomes problematic, and for the GOP to be accused because they drew up the maps in a manner intended to correct the Dems intentional power grab protection is likely to incur the wrath and false accusations by those Dems who no longer have the benefit of a beneficially convoluted map. Who cares what they think? They're not to be trusted as a matter of routine consideration. GOP culprits will be found out and dealt with as is most often the case. That's because conservatives don't like crooks of any kind. It's just another way Dan shows he DOESN'T UNDERSTAND CONSERVATISM.
Since the US constitution and FOG was drafted to protect the minority, then I guess things are working out as intended.
Your ability to selectively decide which majority positions should be supported is strange for someone who bases so much on what things receive majority support in opinion polls.
I understand. In some things opinion polls represent Truth and must not be questioned, while in other things they should just be ignored.
Art,
No, not all redistricting as gerrymandering. The current MD example is a clear case of the DFL gerrymandering in an egregious manner.
Your "the winners draw the maps" take is interesting. It's almost as if you are saying that the majority elected one party and that the majority should be able to actually govern and engage in the responsibilities of governing. How novel.
Craig... "Since the US constitution and FOG was drafted to protect the minority, then I guess things are working out as intended."
1. Given that the original constitution was written by racists who wanted to protect slavery and deny the vote to well more than half the nation, I don't really care too much what the original founders thought. If they wanted to guarantee a minority of white landowners make the rules and set the boundaries, to hell with them.
2. I'm on the record as being quite clear that it is wrong for a minority of the nation a nation to regularly crew Lee create the rules and have this proportionate power given their minority status. Are you able to agree with that?
3. Or do you think that if the GOP and conservative positions on a variety of policies were only held by 30 or 40% of the nation, you're fine with them enforcing those rules on the majority and also setting the boundaries to make voting go then go more favorably for the minority position?
You wouldn't call that a great wrong and an attack on human rights and liberty and reason?
Craig... "the majority should be able to actually govern and engage in the responsibilities of governing."
That's the problem, though, isn't it? We're not talking about majority opinion. You're talking about people making rules to make it easier for the minority to rule over the majority, aren't you? I disagree..
If the democrats are in power, I don't want them gerrymandering to make the voting to go their way. If it were up to me, I would like to see non partisan geographers setting boundaries based on reasonable community voting priorities and not partisan priorities to help one party over the other. I want to see more people vote, not fewer.
I guess you're disagreeing?
Craig... "Your ability to selectively decide which majority positions should be supported is strange for someone who bases so much on what things receive majority support in opinion polls..."
It strikes me a strange that you would think so. Of course, a majority rule should NOT lead to oppression. The majority does NOT get to cause harm or deprive human rights. This is just reasonable and I sort of suspect that you agree. Don't you?
I am always opposed to unjordan being able to decide that someone can cause harm to others.. It's not that hard to understand.
Craig... "Your "the winners draw the maps" take is interesting. It's almost as if you are saying that the majority elected one party and that the majority should be able to actually govern and engage in the responsibilities of governing."
Do you hear how evil the sounds... at least from a free Democratic Republic and a free people?
I wonder, for people like you who appear to advocate a might makes right sort of mentality, is there at some point where you think the minority has gotten too much power??
For instance, pretty consistently consistently republicans get fewer votes and yet they have way more representation. What if it's only 30% of the Republican vote that's winning more elections even though 70% of the vote is not for republicans, are you OK with that? What if it was 20%? What if it were 10% of just wealthy white men that were making the decisions, as long as it was was abiding by the rules set up by the dwindling minority, are you OK with that or you recognize how great an evil that would be ?
1. I guess pointing out that your hunch is simply factually incorrect, would be a waste of my time, so I won't. I could point out that retroactively applying 21st century liberal standards and mores to prior centuries is stupid and foolish, but I won't.
2. I would agree that we live in a country where minority positions are protected by law, and that is as it should be. I would agree that the minority should not dictate to the majority in a representative republic.
3. The hyper partisan way you've phrased the question, makes it an exercise in absurdity to try to take it seriously. I'll simply point out that you just advocated that abortion policy should be implemented regardless of the position of the majority of the population, so consistency doesn't seem to be that important.
"You wouldn't call that a great wrong and an attack on human rights and liberty and reason?"
Since you didn't bother to point out what you're talking about, I see no reason to try to read your mind. FYI, I can see no circumstance where I would consider a vague, general, hypothetical to be "wrong and an attack on human rights and liberty and reason".
"That's the problem, though, isn't it?"
What is "the problem"? If you expect answers, at least ask specific questions.
"If the democrats are in power, I don't want them gerrymandering to make the voting to go their way."
If this is the case, then why have you not actually addressed the actual DFL in MD who is actually engaged in trying to gerrymander the entire state? You make these bland general statements, blame the GOP, but ignore reality.
If it were up to me, I would like to see non partisan geographers setting boundaries based on reasonable community voting priorities and not partisan priorities to help one party over the other. I want to see more people vote, not fewer.
"I guess you're disagreeing?"
If you "guess" that then you're either willfully ignorant, or ignoring reality. Maybe the problem is that you spend too much time making wild ass guesses.
"Don't you?"
Again with the stupid questions. I've been exceedingly clear that the minority should be protected by the majority. Yet you are the one who has advocated for imposing a minority position on the majority in this thread, not I.
"Do you hear how evil the sounds... at least from a free Democratic Republic and a free people?"
What is evil about the notion that the side that wins an election should actually assume the responsibilities and govern. Do you realize how stupid it sounds to assert that the winners of elections should not govern?
"I wonder, for people like you who appear to advocate a might makes right sort of mentality, is there at some point where you think the minority has gotten too much power??"
I wonder where you got the made up hunch that I "advocate a might makes right" sort of mentality. I'd ask you for actual examples, but it would be a waste of time because you couldn't find any and even if you could you're too lazy to ever support these kinds of bullshit claims.
Despite that idiotic, made up nature of your question, the answer is yes.
I see no reason to waste my time with more of your made up fantasies disguised as questions.
Craig... "Do you realize how stupid it sounds to assert that the winners of elections should not govern?"
So, it sounds like you truly don't recognize how horrifying horrifying what you're suggesting sounds. I'm not talking about governing. Of course, leaders should govern.
But governing does NOT include setting up laws and rules and boundaries to make sure that an increasing minority will maintain control. Do you see the point I'm making?
That is the bastard desation and molestation of governing Ind a free Republic. It is the antithesis of governing in a free Republic. It is doing the groundwork to establish a fascism not a free Republic. You recognize this, right?
Setting up rules to ensure that your side remains in power... It's a great evil. It would be wrong for the democrats to do it and it's wrong now that the GOP is doing it so much.
Craig... "I've been exceedingly clear that the minority should be protected by the majority."
I'm not sure if you're following what I'm saying. I'm text saying that the MAJORITY should be protected from the minority. That is, minority views should not be consistently inflicted upon upon the majority, especially when the majority is outvoting the minority but the minority have set up rules to make it easier for them to maintain power. We need to be protected from that sort of abuse of power..., that is, setting up rules that make it easier for a minority to maintain power over and against the will of the majority.
You understand that's what I'm saying, right?
Craig...
"Yet you are the one who has advocated for imposing a minority position on the majority in this thread, not I."
I've been clear that I'm supporting human rights being protected from a majority that would attempt to deny human rights to some. It is about protecting human rights, it has nothing to do with minority or majority. If a minority of white racists want to oppress black people, they shouldn't. Period.
AND, if the majority wants to oppress black people, they still shouldn't. The point would be, human rights regardless of what popular opinion is. Do you disagree?
Craig... "I wonder where you got the made up hunch that I "advocate a might makes right" sort of mentality. I'd ask you for actual examples..."
1. Mitch McConnell refusing to allow Obama's SC nominee even get a vote, just deciding - because he had the might to do so - to make up a new "rule" where they wouldn't vote for a SC nominee in the last year of a presidency. The result being a chance to block the will of the people to have a president nominate a SC justice as his job dictated.
2. McConnell THEN saying, "Well, in the case of TRUMP nominating a candidate in the final few months of his presidency, we WILL let the nominee be voted on..." because he had the power to do so. The result being a lopsided SC that is disproportionately conservative.
3. McConnell, you and Marshal saying that it's okay for a party in power to create rules and maps and policies that help them REMAIN in power, NOT because of the will of the people, but by gerrymandering and taking actions that may depress Democrat voter turnout. You're doing this because the GOP has the power to do this, but not because it's right. OF COURSE, good leaders in a free republic should not create rules that give rise to political power going disproportionately to a minority group (the GOP).
4. You all who support the electoral college, as it exists, subverting the will of the people, repeatedly.
5. You all who support policies whereby small states and counties having a power disproportionate to their numbers... not based on them having ideas that win over popular support, but by having the power to create rules to guarantee an increasing minority of white people having power disproportionate to their numbers.
For example.
I think it's quite clear: Leaders should NOT put policies in place that help perpetuate their power, in spite of not having popular support.
With the one reasonable exception of human rights. IF a majority want to deny human rights, they should not be allowed to do so in a free republic predicated upon honoring human rights.
I have a hard time believing you would disagree with this or find it puzzling in any way. I mean, you DO agree that a nation's people should NOT put in effect policies that would deny human rights of life, liberty, etc to people EVEN IF the majority wanted to do so, right?
If a majority wanted to deny a black and white or gay or lesbian couple the right to choose the spouse of their choice to marry (as was true not so long ago), you would agree that it's wrong to deny them that opportunity, right? And to hell with majority rule in cases like that where human rights are being denied... right?
Craig... "why have you not actually addressed the actual DFL in MD..."
I point you to my FIRST TWO POSTS where I said gerrymandering was wrong. Period.
IF gerrymandering is wrong AND if it happened in Maryland, then you know what? GERRYMANDERING IS STILL WRONG. And if it happened in Alaska? Wrong. If it happened in California, Utah, Montana or Indiana? Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
When I say something is always wrong, then when it happens, I think it's wrong. That would include Maryland, if it is happening there.
Now, I would say that I understand the sentiment, that IF the GOP has been gerrymandering ruthlessly with the result of having an out-sized voice, that it's reasonable to think we need to undo the results of GOP gerrymandering. Still, we should work to end this.
My second comment on this post:
Do you agree with me that we should end partisan gerrymandering?
You did.
Do you agree with me (and I think the known data) that partisan gerrymandering has been done by both parties, but the GOP has done it more "effectively" and ruthlessly and thus, have a disproportionate voice thanks to this practice which should be ended?
You dodged and denied.
"But governing does NOT include setting up laws and rules and boundaries to make sure that an increasing minority will maintain control. Do you see the point I'm making?"
I see that this alleged "point" is unrelated to anything I've actually said or advocated, and appears to be you restating the obvious. In other words, who gives a shit.
"You recognize this, right?"
I recognize that you've made some unsupported assertions.
Still no examples of any specifics.
"You understand that's what I'm saying, right?"
Yes, I understand that you are advocating for the majority to be able to be protected in their power from the minority. For the majority to be able to enforce their will on the minority with little or no regard for those being trampled. I understand that you want to protect those in power from those without power.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree that the minority should be able to impose it's will on the majority.
1. For your information, your "example" an incredibly poor one. The senate rules are NOT laws, they are and have been changed historically by both parties, and used for partisan advantage for both parties. There are multiple examples of all sorts of bills that haven't been brought up for votes because the senate leadership manipulated the rules. For example, the recent BBB debacle is an attempt to use the "reconciliation" process to avoid having to pass through the normal process for voting on a bill. I suspect that you don't have a problem with the twisting of the rules in this case..
2. Again, you're bitching about senate rules, not actual laws. While you don't like the results, this is and has been business as usual in the senate for decades. Both sides manipulate and change the rules to their advantage.
3. If you're going to claim that I've said something, you'll actually need to prove it before I take you seriously.
4. Yes, I support the Electoral College. We don't live in a democracy, and our electoral system is based on states not on individuals. It's almost like you're advocating making significant constitutional changes because it will help achieve your partisan goals.
5. Yes, I do support the constitutional FOG that we have. I Certainly don't support making sweeping changes to the constitution to benefit one partisan goal or another.
If you're going to make assertions about what I may or may not believe, provide proof. I'm not dealing with them otherwise.
"When I say something is always wrong, then when it happens, I think it's wrong. That would include Maryland, if it is happening there."
Thank you for making my point. You continue to deny (If it's happening there), the most recent actual example of partisan gerrymandering, by making these sorts of general statements blaming the GOP.
Then you double down by suggesting that gerrymandering might be OK if it's done to "fix" other gerrymandering.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
It's funny to hear Dan whine on about a minority forcing their plans on the majority, when we're dealing with that right now with his Democrat party.
1. Dan clearly ignores the difference between McConnell refusing to consider Garland versus the situation when Trump was in office. Worse, he ignores how we all dodged a bullet by McConnell's actions given what a moron Garland has proven to be.
2. SCOTUS is not "disproportionately conservative". It's better weighted toward the Constitution. If that's synonymous with conservatism, it's an indictment on the morons Dem presidents like Obama choose.
3. This is an especially egregious statement coming from a low intellect lefty. The Dems are doing all they can to maintain power through efforts to add states, to pack the court and to do away with the filibuster which gives the minority a voice. Also, there are no efforts by the GOP to depress voter turnout by anyone who is legally eligible to vote. Thus, Dan lies intentionally once again.
4. The Electoral College subverts nothing as it was established to protect minority rights against the power of the majority. Dan, like so many lefties, thinks we live in a democracy and as such believes presidents should be elected by popular vote nationwide. This is a plan to grab and maintain power, so Dan demonstrates his hypocrisy to go along with his lying.
5. Pure fantasy and projection... a common practice of the left.
1. Dan does tend to ignore things like nuance, context, and the like when he's trying to make a point.
2. While the current makeup of SCOTUS leans slightly to "the right", that isn't a problem. First, because leaning to the right simply means toward the constitutional role of the court. Second, because the court has and will lean to "the left" and I suspect that Dan won't have a problem with that. I also suspect that Dan would not object to the court packing plans that have been floated in order to artificially tilt the court to the left.
3. Yes, the DFL is actively engaged in all sorts of things designed to benefit themselves politically with little regard to anything else.
4. The problem with those who object to the EC is that they don't understand the role of states in or FOG. They want to eliminate our representative republic in favor of a democracy. They want to eliminate any protection of the minority in favor of a simple majority rule. They'll fight hard for this, until they're in the minority.
Post a Comment