|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 14 2017 04:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:17 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:On December 14 2017 03:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
Oh, this is pretty insane. The 7th district includes basically all 3 major urban areas plus the Black Belt in AK. Probably like 40% of the population and over half the state's economic output.
idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.) It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats. Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others. "Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue). The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation). You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair. If more than half your state by population is rural, then winning those districts will still get you more house representation. How is that unfair? Because rural areas lack population but still deserve representation ... instead of stupidly putting all voters in a basket and assigning based on popular vote percentage. A Democrat in small town farmland is not the same as a Democrat living in public housing working in a service industry. It’s by design reflective of areas instead of state populations. 1) That is literally what one is doing when making a whole city, or such a large part of it, a single district. Let's not pretend urban areas are homogeneous and every group and region actually gets represented by having "the urban district" like we see with Alabama here. 2) One wants to represent people, not land. I'm not saying get rid of rural districts, they still get house seats. Just not so disproportionately many.
Your plan easily makes a tyranny of the majority, if share of total popular vote was tied to representatives. I have no interest in making things more unfair in the other direction—or two wrongs do not make a right.
|
I will never understand how you can get more due than one person's vote having the same impact as anyone else's in their state on state level policy. Moving over a district line shouldn't make your vote more impactful on state level policy. Especially since implementing that over first-past-the-post means you can actually have situations where a state breaks down 15-30-30-25 and the folks at the margins can actually have a voice.
Instead nobody cares about Republicans in Washington State if they live in Seattle. They have 0 voice. Great.
|
On December 14 2017 04:30 raNazUra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:17 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.) It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats. Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others. "Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue). The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation). You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair. If more than half your state by population is rural, then winning those districts will still get you more house representation. How is that unfair? Because rural areas lack population but still deserve representation ... instead of stupidly putting all voters in a basket and assigning based on popular vote percentage. A Democrat in small town farmland is not the same as a Democrat living in public housing working in a service industry. It’s by design reflective of areas instead of state populations. I think my main issue with this statement is that I think this is the fact that we already have the House and the Senate. In my mind, the House is the body that provides the ideal (in the ideological sense, not the optimal sense) of 'one person, one vote', while the Senate is the body that says "This geographical area (i.e. a state) gets equal votes with its neighbors" or 'one state, one vote'. The founding fathers decided it was a good idea to balance between those two, and I do think it's still reasonable, but when we're talking about one of them in isolation, like the House, then we should be thinking about what that body in particular is supposed to represent. Long story short, I would disagree with your last sentence, and say that the Senate is by design reflective of areas instead of populations, and we're talking about House districts.
Assigning power to states within the house of reps should be related to state population. Assigning those representatives within the state is the states business, between different interests and different people.
|
On December 14 2017 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.) It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats. Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others. "Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue). The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation). You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "undue"? I understand what you mean by saying if, for example, Seattle 100% determined all Washington representation. But the idea that 100,000 urban folks should have the same representation as 10,000 rural is still a little silly. It shouldn't be equal. It should be skewed to make 10,000 not so powerless, but we need to keep in mind we are aiming to represent people here. Some counties, while very large, are mostly made up of cattle and other agricultural stuff. It is important to keep in mind that the goal is still to represent humans, not land. The Seattle issue is certainly an issue, but the solution is not to say these miniscule counties should get totally equal representation.
The House and senate are specifically designed to combat the issue you are talking about. 2 senators per state, regardless of population and members of the house based on population. I ideally the members of the house would be spread evenly with the maybe an extra member or two to represent the rural areas. We don’t want rural areas to be completely under represented and feel the political system neglects them.
The problem that Danglars is sort of skidding around is that the reverse has happened in many red states. The rural areas receive the majority of seats in government and the highly populated areas have their political power reduced. All of this favors Republicans.
On December 14 2017 04:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:30 raNazUra wrote:On December 14 2017 04:17 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.) It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats. Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others. "Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue). The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation). You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair. If more than half your state by population is rural, then winning those districts will still get you more house representation. How is that unfair? Because rural areas lack population but still deserve representation ... instead of stupidly putting all voters in a basket and assigning based on popular vote percentage. A Democrat in small town farmland is not the same as a Democrat living in public housing working in a service industry. It’s by design reflective of areas instead of state populations. I think my main issue with this statement is that I think this is the fact that we already have the House and the Senate. In my mind, the House is the body that provides the ideal (in the ideological sense, not the optimal sense) of 'one person, one vote', while the Senate is the body that says "This geographical area (i.e. a state) gets equal votes with its neighbors" or 'one state, one vote'. The founding fathers decided it was a good idea to balance between those two, and I do think it's still reasonable, but when we're talking about one of them in isolation, like the House, then we should be thinking about what that body in particular is supposed to represent. Long story short, I would disagree with your last sentence, and say that the Senate is by design reflective of areas instead of populations, and we're talking about House districts. Assigning power to states within the house of reps should be related to state population. Assigning those representatives within the state is the states business, between different interests and different people.
What happens when the state cheats and fixes the game so they one party can lose the popular vote and still get 60-70% of the seats? Because that is what is happening across the US. Politicians get to pick their voters every 10 years based on who is in power.
|
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power.
|
And both sides will talk a big talk about how the good of the nation, rather than petty opportunism, is their real concern.
|
On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power.
Out of curiosity, is there direct evidence that Democrats actually gerrymander to the same extent as Republicans? I don't know, so I'm asking.
|
On December 14 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 04:17 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.) It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats. Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others. "Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue). The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation). You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair. If more than half your state by population is rural, then winning those districts will still get you more house representation. How is that unfair? Because rural areas lack population but still deserve representation ... instead of stupidly putting all voters in a basket and assigning based on popular vote percentage. A Democrat in small town farmland is not the same as a Democrat living in public housing working in a service industry. It’s by design reflective of areas instead of state populations. 1) That is literally what one is doing when making a whole city, or such a large part of it, a single district. Let's not pretend urban areas are homogeneous and every group and region actually gets represented by having "the urban district" like we see with Alabama here. 2) One wants to represent people, not land. I'm not saying get rid of rural districts, they still get house seats. Just not so disproportionately many. Your plan easily makes a tyranny of the majority, if share of total popular vote was tied to representatives. I have no interest in making things more unfair in the other direction—or two wrongs do not make a right.
As opposed to the current tyranny of the fucking minority where land votes at all 3 levels with enough weight that the minority by vote party controls ALL THREE LEVELS of the charade?
The senate already exists to address this.
You want the house to act as an extension of that idea, by allowing it to assign representatives to land as opposed to people (even making this allowance is too much, as the current situation clearly shows).
You yourself literally said it, in a later post, different interests and people. What better does that than by giving PEOPLE as opposed to regions (which the senate already does, to repeat, for the nth time) representation?
|
On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power.
Yeah, which is why the only actual way to stop it is to kill 51% of the vote being just as valuable as 90% of the vote. Because gerrymandering is an artifact of first-past-the-post and only having two viable political parties, and any "algorithm" is gameable.
You'd still have plenty of power for rural regions in heavily rural states. Like Alabama, where Trump won by 28% of the vote because nearly half the state population is rural.
|
On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power.
Hence why most other nations (and other states) defer the line drawing to independent third parties. Which does not solve the problem, but is at least better than giving the people in power the power to keep themselves in power.
|
On December 14 2017 04:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Out of curiosity, is there direct evidence that Democrats actually gerrymander to the same extent as Republicans? I don't know, so I'm asking.
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/10/democratic_oregon_is_part_of_g.html
I mean it was named after a politician named Gerry back in the start of the country so it pretty much predates even the Democrats. Whats the article that I linked does well is express a good statistical marker I belive for measuring gerrymandering in an "efficency gap" of votes to representatives.
|
On December 14 2017 04:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Out of curiosity, is there direct evidence that Democrats actually gerrymander to the same extent as Republicans? I don't know, so I'm asking.
It's not really knowable. The gerrymandering was able to be so extreme because 2010 was a very extreme wave election across the US. So the GOP took governor, house, and senate in a lot of states that had never been controlled by 1 party. Without that gerrymandering to the extent in wisconsin, for instance, would have been impossible.
There are states where it's gerrymandered against GOP and not against democrats, though. According to a recent 538 podcast on the topic, a full 1/3 of states would have their legislative maps redrawn if the efficiency margin (how many votes were "wasted") were limited to the recommendation in the paper that defines the concept (8% was their recommendation - wisconsin is 14%). If drawn by a computer there's about a 1/3 chance a map favors GOP in wisconsin, but no randomly generated map comes anywhere near 14%.
If you want news on the gerrymandering case this is a good place : https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6
(right now it looks like they're taking up a democrat favored gerrymandering case in maryland, possibly in conjunction with the wisconsin one)
|
On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power.
Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation?
|
On December 14 2017 04:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Out of curiosity, is there direct evidence that Democrats actually gerrymander to the same extent as Republicans? I don't know, so I'm asking. http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/10/democratic_oregon_is_part_of_g.htmlI mean it was named after a politician named Gerry back in the start of the country so it pretty much predates even the Democrats. Whats the article that I linked does well is express a good statistical marker I belive for measuring gerrymandering in an "efficency gap" of votes to representatives.
On December 14 2017 04:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Out of curiosity, is there direct evidence that Democrats actually gerrymander to the same extent as Republicans? I don't know, so I'm asking. It's not really knowable. The gerrymandering was able to be so extreme because 2010 was a very extreme wave election across the US. So the GOP took governor, house, and senate in a lot of states that had never been controlled by 1 party. Without that gerrymandering to the extent in wisconsin, for instance, would have been impossible. There are states where it's gerrymandered against GOP and not against democrats, though. According to a recent 538 podcast on the topic, a full 1/3 of states would have their legislative maps redrawn if the efficiency margin (how many votes were "wasted") were limited to the recommendation in the paper that defines the concept (8% was their recommendation - wisconsin is 14%). If drawn by a computer there's about a 1/3 chance a map favors GOP in wisconsin, but no randomly generated map comes anywhere near 14%. If you want news on the gerrymandering case this is a good place : https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6(right now it looks like they're taking up a democrat favored gerrymandering case in maryland, possibly in conjunction with the wisconsin one)
Okay, thanks for sharing  I'll look into those sources!
|
On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation?
Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years.
One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness.
|
On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:
One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness.
Why does this even matter? You're not drawing districts to distribute voters evenly. You're drawing them in lines that actually makes sense. Population, municipal lines, geography, are all factors that should take precedence long before "how people vote" actually takes effect.
Starting at the very basic level, the only squiggly lines you should see on an electoral map should be because of rivers or mountain ranges.
|
On December 14 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:
One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. Why does this even matter? You're not drawing districts to distribute voters evenly. You're drawing them in lines that actually makes sense. Population, municipal lines, geography, are all factors that should take precedence long before "how people vote" actually takes effect. Starting at the very basic level, the only squiggly lines you should see on an electoral map should be because of rivers or mountain ranges.
Man I can think of a dozen ways to gerrymander a state so those rules get twisted to what we have now. South side and west side of Chicago should be one district and north and east should be another. The "suburbs" can be easily divided up with their second tier suburbs because thats fair beacuse they're close to eachother and probably share police departments anyway. Then well the counties can be plugged into a good puzzle because they're looking the same from how high I'm up. I don't just happen to have election returns from the last 5 elections in my back pocket
|
On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness.
There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you.
|
districts themselves really aren't a good system.
i still want to hear a number from the people who want rural votes to count for more than other people's votes. how much more should their votes count for? and of course be sure to admit you don't believe in the principle of one man one vote.
imho the claims of rural areas no tgettin represented are usually bs anyways, and false attribution.
just because both sides argue the point that comes in there favor doesn't mean one of them can't in fact be the more ethical one.
it's certainly quite clear that republicans don' actually believe in it at all as an ethical stance, and are purely doing it for their own gain.
|
On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power.
The side out of power whines about it like they oppose the corruption of the process, when they really want to be in charge of it and hear the other side whining. These proposed “solutions” regularly look worse than leaving it a political process by state representatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
