|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 18 2019 01:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 01:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2019 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 19:06 Slydie wrote:On November 17 2019 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 00:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think House Dems locked things in when they voted for the formal impeachment process. The nuance of "well I just voted for the process then against the articles" is not a concept that will be easily communicated to voters, and the actual justification for the flip flop is going to be difficult given that the substance of the facts were well known and now blanks are being publicly filled in.
You have more confidence in Democrats than I do. I think Pelosi didn't want to go down this road because she knows how cynical they are. Whether it's in the House or the Senate the bipartisan vote will be on the side of not impeaching. There's easily 30+ House Dems that would rather be on the side of the winning vote than be seen as being part of a failed partisan (they won't get any R votes) impeachment attempt and lose their seat in 2020. Trump won ~31 districts that Dems have seats in now, he needs ~18 House Manchins for this to die in the House and embarrass Pelosi/Dems. He got 2 already (so the bipartisan position is in opposition to impeachment in the house already) saying even going through the motions of the investigation was a waste. It is unclear if the Dems will win on this in the end, but with the evidence at hand, I don't think they had another choice. It won't pass the Senate, but revealing GOP and Trump corruption for the world should fire up their own supporters. The problem I'm highlighting is that it doesn't, as well as not firing up independents. Republicans+leaning isn't 50%, yet impeachment can't even clear 50% (needs at least 50% or people would have to vote against their constituents preference, but seems to be falling again). As someone who went through dozens of "oh the Democrats can't possibly do THAT's"over the past few years I can promise not only that they can, but their supporters will defend them for it as their only/best option no matter how ridiculous. As I said from the start the cop out they are going to go with (on both sides of the aisle) is that we can't impeach a president in an election year on a partisan vote (against a bipartisan one). You’re doing bad math here. Republicans may not have half the population but they don’t need that to have half the Senate. The inability to pass impeachment through the a Senate has nothing to do with popular opinion and everything to do with gerrymandering. You realize the Senate is a statewide election right? You can't gerrymander a Senate election. The issue is that the Democrat party is very regionalized and urban and its ethos and diaspora has an arrogant attitude towards a great deal (indeed, probably a majority) of the states in the country. Until they get out of their bubble it's going to be hard for them to grab decent majorities in the Senate for any sustained period of time. You absolutely can gerrymander the Senate by making a bunch of small rural states vs large populous urban states. The senate is completely unrepresentative of the population. California should be a dozen states with about 20 Democratic senators and 4 Republicans.
Less than 10 years ago the Democrats had 60 senators (58+2 independents who caucused them), a percentage the GOP hasn't had since the 30s. The Democrats almost willingly gave up those seats because of the direction they took their party. There being small states really has nothing to do with anything that could be called gerrymandering, and using that word is an irrelevant, sorry excuse for a party's failure in the Senate. It's also why I find complaints about the Senate to be rich. Less than a decade ago they had a filibuster proof caucus. Now they whine that it's unfair.
|
United States43437 Posts
On November 18 2019 02:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 01:19 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 01:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2019 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 19:06 Slydie wrote:On November 17 2019 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 00:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think House Dems locked things in when they voted for the formal impeachment process. The nuance of "well I just voted for the process then against the articles" is not a concept that will be easily communicated to voters, and the actual justification for the flip flop is going to be difficult given that the substance of the facts were well known and now blanks are being publicly filled in.
You have more confidence in Democrats than I do. I think Pelosi didn't want to go down this road because she knows how cynical they are. Whether it's in the House or the Senate the bipartisan vote will be on the side of not impeaching. There's easily 30+ House Dems that would rather be on the side of the winning vote than be seen as being part of a failed partisan (they won't get any R votes) impeachment attempt and lose their seat in 2020. Trump won ~31 districts that Dems have seats in now, he needs ~18 House Manchins for this to die in the House and embarrass Pelosi/Dems. He got 2 already (so the bipartisan position is in opposition to impeachment in the house already) saying even going through the motions of the investigation was a waste. It is unclear if the Dems will win on this in the end, but with the evidence at hand, I don't think they had another choice. It won't pass the Senate, but revealing GOP and Trump corruption for the world should fire up their own supporters. The problem I'm highlighting is that it doesn't, as well as not firing up independents. Republicans+leaning isn't 50%, yet impeachment can't even clear 50% (needs at least 50% or people would have to vote against their constituents preference, but seems to be falling again). As someone who went through dozens of "oh the Democrats can't possibly do THAT's"over the past few years I can promise not only that they can, but their supporters will defend them for it as their only/best option no matter how ridiculous. As I said from the start the cop out they are going to go with (on both sides of the aisle) is that we can't impeach a president in an election year on a partisan vote (against a bipartisan one). You’re doing bad math here. Republicans may not have half the population but they don’t need that to have half the Senate. The inability to pass impeachment through the a Senate has nothing to do with popular opinion and everything to do with gerrymandering. You realize the Senate is a statewide election right? You can't gerrymander a Senate election. The issue is that the Democrat party is very regionalized and urban and its ethos and diaspora has an arrogant attitude towards a great deal (indeed, probably a majority) of the states in the country. Until they get out of their bubble it's going to be hard for them to grab decent majorities in the Senate for any sustained period of time. You absolutely can gerrymander the Senate by making a bunch of small rural states vs large populous urban states. The senate is completely unrepresentative of the population. California should be a dozen states with about 20 Democratic senators and 4 Republicans. Less than 10 years ago the Democrats had 60 senators (58+2 independents who caucused them), a percentage the GOP hasn't had since the 30s. The Democrats almost willingly gave up those seats because of the direction they took their party. There being small states really has nothing to do with anything that could be called gerrymandering, and using that word is an irrelevant, sorry excuse for a party's failure in the Senate. It's also why I find complaints about the Senate to be rich. Less than a decade ago they had a filibuster proof caucus. Now they whine that it's unfair.
Few issues there. Firstly, the idea that the Democrats gave them up implies that they were Democratic by default. They are not, they flipped due to Iraq and the Recession, a single exception does not create a new norm. They didn’t lose Democratic seats in 2012, they temporarily gained Republican ones in 2008. Secondly, whatever you want to call it, the country has been divided into 50 blocks and the Democratic voters, who represent a majority, have been densely packed into a minority of those blocks. If someone drew the lines today we would absolutely call it gerrymandering and say that the rules gave Republican voters significantly more representation in the Senate than their Democratic rivals.
|
On November 18 2019 03:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 02:34 Introvert wrote:On November 18 2019 01:19 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 01:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2019 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 19:06 Slydie wrote:On November 17 2019 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 00:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think House Dems locked things in when they voted for the formal impeachment process. The nuance of "well I just voted for the process then against the articles" is not a concept that will be easily communicated to voters, and the actual justification for the flip flop is going to be difficult given that the substance of the facts were well known and now blanks are being publicly filled in.
You have more confidence in Democrats than I do. I think Pelosi didn't want to go down this road because she knows how cynical they are. Whether it's in the House or the Senate the bipartisan vote will be on the side of not impeaching. There's easily 30+ House Dems that would rather be on the side of the winning vote than be seen as being part of a failed partisan (they won't get any R votes) impeachment attempt and lose their seat in 2020. Trump won ~31 districts that Dems have seats in now, he needs ~18 House Manchins for this to die in the House and embarrass Pelosi/Dems. He got 2 already (so the bipartisan position is in opposition to impeachment in the house already) saying even going through the motions of the investigation was a waste. It is unclear if the Dems will win on this in the end, but with the evidence at hand, I don't think they had another choice. It won't pass the Senate, but revealing GOP and Trump corruption for the world should fire up their own supporters. The problem I'm highlighting is that it doesn't, as well as not firing up independents. Republicans+leaning isn't 50%, yet impeachment can't even clear 50% (needs at least 50% or people would have to vote against their constituents preference, but seems to be falling again). As someone who went through dozens of "oh the Democrats can't possibly do THAT's"over the past few years I can promise not only that they can, but their supporters will defend them for it as their only/best option no matter how ridiculous. As I said from the start the cop out they are going to go with (on both sides of the aisle) is that we can't impeach a president in an election year on a partisan vote (against a bipartisan one). You’re doing bad math here. Republicans may not have half the population but they don’t need that to have half the Senate. The inability to pass impeachment through the a Senate has nothing to do with popular opinion and everything to do with gerrymandering. You realize the Senate is a statewide election right? You can't gerrymander a Senate election. The issue is that the Democrat party is very regionalized and urban and its ethos and diaspora has an arrogant attitude towards a great deal (indeed, probably a majority) of the states in the country. Until they get out of their bubble it's going to be hard for them to grab decent majorities in the Senate for any sustained period of time. You absolutely can gerrymander the Senate by making a bunch of small rural states vs large populous urban states. The senate is completely unrepresentative of the population. California should be a dozen states with about 20 Democratic senators and 4 Republicans. Less than 10 years ago the Democrats had 60 senators (58+2 independents who caucused them), a percentage the GOP hasn't had since the 30s. The Democrats almost willingly gave up those seats because of the direction they took their party. There being small states really has nothing to do with anything that could be called gerrymandering, and using that word is an irrelevant, sorry excuse for a party's failure in the Senate. It's also why I find complaints about the Senate to be rich. Less than a decade ago they had a filibuster proof caucus. Now they whine that it's unfair. Few issues there. Firstly, the idea that the Democrats gave them up implies that they were Democratic by default. They are not, they flipped due to Iraq and the Recession, a single exception does not create a new norm. They didn’t lose Democratic seats in 2012, they temporarily gained Republican ones in 2008. Secondly, whatever you want to call it, the country has been divided into 50 blocks and the Democratic voters, who represent a majority, have been densely packed into a minority of those blocks. If someone drew the lines today we would absolutely call it gerrymandering and say that the rules gave Republican voters significantly more representation in the Senate than their Democratic rivals.
First, "gave them up" implies that they had them, and then lost them, not that they were Democrat by default. And I think in a recent post I mentioned how slow the change was from Southern Dem to Rep. It was not the "old norm" that Republicans controlled the Senate.
Second, the fact that we did not in fact just draw those lines is kind of the obvious issue with your analysis. The states already existed and the way each party behaves and the platform it runs on changes where they will be most effective. If the Democrats want to move from the a Southern and Northern-urban party to a Northern and Sunbelt party then it takes time, and they haven't gotten there yet. but the lines already exist, calling to gerrymandering is either lazy or just wrong. Democrats have been winning large cities for decades already.
Yes, right now the Senate has more Republicans representing less people , but that's not the basis for the Senate and moreover it's not structurally advantaged towards them. In 1990 common thought was that Republicans had a lock on the Presidency and Democrats had a lock on the House; within 5 years both of those things were found to be false. After Obama won, the never-doubting "emerging majority" crowd thought the Electoral College would ensure Democrat victory from then on (the Blue Wall, anyone?). They still think that. Coalitions change, but the structure of the Senate and state lines haven't changed.
And this is why Republicans will always have a chance, the Democrats spend so much time complaining about the rules as soon as they lose under them instead of figuring out how to win or learning from how they won before.
|
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government.
|
United States43437 Posts
On November 18 2019 05:48 Gorgonoth wrote:
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government.
The United States sounds like it would fit the definition of a territorial unit. The states sound like they would fit the definition of electoral districts. There is a clear political advantage given to the party of small rural states. I don’t really know what you think you’ve achieved here beyond winning an argument against yourself but good job, you nailed it.
On a separate note, most of what you learn in middle school is overly simplistic, wrong, and superseded by what you learn later. That’s why you should stay in school beyond middle school. If your argument boils down to an appeal to the authority of a middle school teacher then you should probably try harder.
|
Yeah no, now your just being pedantic Kwark.
You can complain that the Senate distribution is outdated and was formed before Urbanisation became a thing but Gerrymandering is not appropriate in the context of the usual use of the word.
|
On November 18 2019 06:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 05:48 Gorgonoth wrote:
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government. The United States sounds like it would fit the definition of a territorial unit. The states sound like they would fit the definition of electoral districts. There is a clear political advantage given to the party of small rural states. I don’t really know what you think you’ve achieved here beyond winning an argument against yourself but good job, you nailed it. On a separate note, most of what you learn in middle school is overly simplistic, wrong, and superseded by what you learn later. That’s why you should stay in school beyond middle school. If your argument boils down to an appeal to the authority of a middle school teacher then you should probably try harder.
I didn't think I would have to get super granular with the definition to show how obviously ridiculous the assertion that winning more senate elections = gerrymandering but I guess I have to.
Gerrymandering involves the alteration of boundaries in order to benefit yourself. Are Republicans altering boundaries? Are they redrawing the way that New Jersey is shaped so that South jersey is 2 GOP seats? Nope, they're winning elections in predetermined districts set up long ago.
Note the keywords in the definition Dividing and arranging territorial districts. State borders do not change, end of story.
On a seperate note, there's alot of ways you can critizice GOP poltics without being overly simplistic and wrong. That's all I'm trying to point out.
|
On November 18 2019 02:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 01:19 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 01:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2019 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 19:06 Slydie wrote:On November 17 2019 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 00:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think House Dems locked things in when they voted for the formal impeachment process. The nuance of "well I just voted for the process then against the articles" is not a concept that will be easily communicated to voters, and the actual justification for the flip flop is going to be difficult given that the substance of the facts were well known and now blanks are being publicly filled in.
You have more confidence in Democrats than I do. I think Pelosi didn't want to go down this road because she knows how cynical they are. Whether it's in the House or the Senate the bipartisan vote will be on the side of not impeaching. There's easily 30+ House Dems that would rather be on the side of the winning vote than be seen as being part of a failed partisan (they won't get any R votes) impeachment attempt and lose their seat in 2020. Trump won ~31 districts that Dems have seats in now, he needs ~18 House Manchins for this to die in the House and embarrass Pelosi/Dems. He got 2 already (so the bipartisan position is in opposition to impeachment in the house already) saying even going through the motions of the investigation was a waste. It is unclear if the Dems will win on this in the end, but with the evidence at hand, I don't think they had another choice. It won't pass the Senate, but revealing GOP and Trump corruption for the world should fire up their own supporters. The problem I'm highlighting is that it doesn't, as well as not firing up independents. Republicans+leaning isn't 50%, yet impeachment can't even clear 50% (needs at least 50% or people would have to vote against their constituents preference, but seems to be falling again). As someone who went through dozens of "oh the Democrats can't possibly do THAT's"over the past few years I can promise not only that they can, but their supporters will defend them for it as their only/best option no matter how ridiculous. As I said from the start the cop out they are going to go with (on both sides of the aisle) is that we can't impeach a president in an election year on a partisan vote (against a bipartisan one). You’re doing bad math here. Republicans may not have half the population but they don’t need that to have half the Senate. The inability to pass impeachment through the a Senate has nothing to do with popular opinion and everything to do with gerrymandering. You realize the Senate is a statewide election right? You can't gerrymander a Senate election. The issue is that the Democrat party is very regionalized and urban and its ethos and diaspora has an arrogant attitude towards a great deal (indeed, probably a majority) of the states in the country. Until they get out of their bubble it's going to be hard for them to grab decent majorities in the Senate for any sustained period of time. You absolutely can gerrymander the Senate by making a bunch of small rural states vs large populous urban states. The senate is completely unrepresentative of the population. California should be a dozen states with about 20 Democratic senators and 4 Republicans. Less than 10 years ago the Democrats had 60 senators (58+2 independents who caucused them), a percentage the GOP hasn't had since the 30s. The Democrats almost willingly gave up those seats because of the direction they took their party. There being small states really has nothing to do with anything that could be called gerrymandering, and using that word is an irrelevant, sorry excuse for a party's failure in the Senate. It's also why I find complaints about the Senate to be rich. Less than a decade ago they had a filibuster proof caucus. Now they whine that it's unfair.
Can you please elaborate on this? What direction are you referring to?
|
United States43437 Posts
On November 18 2019 07:02 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 06:32 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 05:48 Gorgonoth wrote:
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government. The United States sounds like it would fit the definition of a territorial unit. The states sound like they would fit the definition of electoral districts. There is a clear political advantage given to the party of small rural states. I don’t really know what you think you’ve achieved here beyond winning an argument against yourself but good job, you nailed it. On a separate note, most of what you learn in middle school is overly simplistic, wrong, and superseded by what you learn later. That’s why you should stay in school beyond middle school. If your argument boils down to an appeal to the authority of a middle school teacher then you should probably try harder. I didn't think I would have to get super granular with the definition to show how obviously ridiculous the assertion that winning more senate elections = gerrymandering but I guess I have to. Gerrymandering involves the alteration of boundaries in order to benefit yourself. Are Republicans altering boundaries? Are they redrawing the way that New Jersey is shaped so that South jersey is 2 GOP seats? Nope, they're winning elections in predetermined districts set up long ago. Note the keywords in the definition Dividing and arranging territorial districts. State borders do not change, end of story. On a seperate note, there's alot of ways you can critizice GOP poltics without being overly simplistic and wrong. That's all I'm trying to point out.
I used gerrymandering because it’s the best shorthand for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters”. I have zero interest in hearing how it might be functionally the same thing but it’s technically a different thing which doesn’t have a name but the name I used is technically wrong, while still being functionally accurate. Pedants get met with pedantry.
|
The causality is all wrong. It's not gerrymandering for a party to favor pre-drawn borders. Gerrymandering is when borders are drawn to favor a party.
|
On November 18 2019 07:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 07:02 Gorgonoth wrote:On November 18 2019 06:32 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 05:48 Gorgonoth wrote:
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government. The United States sounds like it would fit the definition of a territorial unit. The states sound like they would fit the definition of electoral districts. There is a clear political advantage given to the party of small rural states. I don’t really know what you think you’ve achieved here beyond winning an argument against yourself but good job, you nailed it. On a separate note, most of what you learn in middle school is overly simplistic, wrong, and superseded by what you learn later. That’s why you should stay in school beyond middle school. If your argument boils down to an appeal to the authority of a middle school teacher then you should probably try harder. I didn't think I would have to get super granular with the definition to show how obviously ridiculous the assertion that winning more senate elections = gerrymandering but I guess I have to. Gerrymandering involves the alteration of boundaries in order to benefit yourself. Are Republicans altering boundaries? Are they redrawing the way that New Jersey is shaped so that South jersey is 2 GOP seats? Nope, they're winning elections in predetermined districts set up long ago. Note the keywords in the definition Dividing and arranging territorial districts. State borders do not change, end of story. On a seperate note, there's alot of ways you can critizice GOP poltics without being overly simplistic and wrong. That's all I'm trying to point out. I used gerrymandering because it’s the best shorthand for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters”. I have zero interest in hearing how it might be functionally the same thing but it’s technically a different thing which doesn’t have a name but the name I used is technically wrong, while still being functionally accurate. Pedants get met with pedantry.
I won't tell you that "you said something technically wrong but your definition is functionally accurate." You specifically accused Republicans of gerrymandering, and there is no substantial argument you've made as to why that's so. Gerrymandering in all cases means involves manipulation of boundaries to meet a partisan end. That is not going on by either party in senate races because boundaries are fixed.
Gerrymandering is not short for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters” That's a consequence of Congress being a representative democracy. As many have pointed out, senate power shifts regularly and does not always represent the exact popular vote of the entire nation. That isn't gerrymandering, its called living in a representative system. If you want to critique that system be my guest, but attacking the GOP for something that is a product of our governmental design then I'll pipe up.
|
United States43437 Posts
On November 18 2019 07:49 IgnE wrote:
The causality is all wrong. It's not gerrymandering for a party to favor pre-drawn borders. Gerrymandering is when borders are drawn to favor a party.
A distinction I’ve acknowledged. I used the word outside of the strictest meaning because it functionally describes what I was trying to describe and we all know how senate seats are allocated so we don’t need to go into the exact details of the exceptions when we already all agree upon them and we all know that we all already know what they are. This entire subsequent discussion of senate seats is a waste of time because nobody disagrees on the details and nobody is getting corrected.
|
So it looks like a gerrymander, swims like a gerrymander and quacks like a gerrymander, but it wasn't hatched from an egg like a gerrymander. Its effect on the world is still pretty similar.
|
United States43437 Posts
On November 18 2019 07:51 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 07:29 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 07:02 Gorgonoth wrote:On November 18 2019 06:32 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 05:48 Gorgonoth wrote:
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government. The United States sounds like it would fit the definition of a territorial unit. The states sound like they would fit the definition of electoral districts. There is a clear political advantage given to the party of small rural states. I don’t really know what you think you’ve achieved here beyond winning an argument against yourself but good job, you nailed it. On a separate note, most of what you learn in middle school is overly simplistic, wrong, and superseded by what you learn later. That’s why you should stay in school beyond middle school. If your argument boils down to an appeal to the authority of a middle school teacher then you should probably try harder. I didn't think I would have to get super granular with the definition to show how obviously ridiculous the assertion that winning more senate elections = gerrymandering but I guess I have to. Gerrymandering involves the alteration of boundaries in order to benefit yourself. Are Republicans altering boundaries? Are they redrawing the way that New Jersey is shaped so that South jersey is 2 GOP seats? Nope, they're winning elections in predetermined districts set up long ago. Note the keywords in the definition Dividing and arranging territorial districts. State borders do not change, end of story. On a seperate note, there's alot of ways you can critizice GOP poltics without being overly simplistic and wrong. That's all I'm trying to point out. I used gerrymandering because it’s the best shorthand for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters”. I have zero interest in hearing how it might be functionally the same thing but it’s technically a different thing which doesn’t have a name but the name I used is technically wrong, while still being functionally accurate. Pedants get met with pedantry. I won't tell you that "you said something technically wrong but your definition is functionally accurate." You specifically accused Republicans of gerrymandering, and there is no substantial argument you've made as to why that's so. Gerrymandering in all cases means involves manipulation of boundaries to meet a partisan end. That is not going on by either party in senate races because boundaries are fixed. Gerrymandering is not short for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters” That's a consequence of Congress being a representative democracy. As many have pointed out, senate power shifts regularly and does not always represent the exact popular vote of the entire nation. That isn't gerrymandering, its called living in a representative system. If you want to critique that system be my guest, but attacking the GOP for something that is a product of our governmental design then I'll pipe up.
Oh hush. You’re arguing by yourself.
|
On November 18 2019 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 07:51 Gorgonoth wrote:On November 18 2019 07:29 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 07:02 Gorgonoth wrote:On November 18 2019 06:32 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 05:48 Gorgonoth wrote:
Sorry, Kwark, but "Republicans gerrymander Senate elections" is an absurd take.
Merriam Webster's definition of Gerrymandering: the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.
Since the 17th Amendment senators are elected in statewide elections not affected by any political boundaries or state legislatures that would add a partisan element to it.
Congress is made up of two houses that balance power differently. It's obviously meant to balance power so small states have more power in one house, and large states in the other. This is middle school US Government. The United States sounds like it would fit the definition of a territorial unit. The states sound like they would fit the definition of electoral districts. There is a clear political advantage given to the party of small rural states. I don’t really know what you think you’ve achieved here beyond winning an argument against yourself but good job, you nailed it. On a separate note, most of what you learn in middle school is overly simplistic, wrong, and superseded by what you learn later. That’s why you should stay in school beyond middle school. If your argument boils down to an appeal to the authority of a middle school teacher then you should probably try harder. I didn't think I would have to get super granular with the definition to show how obviously ridiculous the assertion that winning more senate elections = gerrymandering but I guess I have to. Gerrymandering involves the alteration of boundaries in order to benefit yourself. Are Republicans altering boundaries? Are they redrawing the way that New Jersey is shaped so that South jersey is 2 GOP seats? Nope, they're winning elections in predetermined districts set up long ago. Note the keywords in the definition Dividing and arranging territorial districts. State borders do not change, end of story. On a seperate note, there's alot of ways you can critizice GOP poltics without being overly simplistic and wrong. That's all I'm trying to point out. I used gerrymandering because it’s the best shorthand for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters”. I have zero interest in hearing how it might be functionally the same thing but it’s technically a different thing which doesn’t have a name but the name I used is technically wrong, while still being functionally accurate. Pedants get met with pedantry. I won't tell you that "you said something technically wrong but your definition is functionally accurate." You specifically accused Republicans of gerrymandering, and there is no substantial argument you've made as to why that's so. Gerrymandering in all cases means involves manipulation of boundaries to meet a partisan end. That is not going on by either party in senate races because boundaries are fixed. Gerrymandering is not short for “the interaction between electoral districts and demographics give one party far more representation than they would deserve from their number of voters” That's a consequence of Congress being a representative democracy. As many have pointed out, senate power shifts regularly and does not always represent the exact popular vote of the entire nation. That isn't gerrymandering, its called living in a representative system. If you want to critique that system be my guest, but attacking the GOP for something that is a product of our governmental design then I'll pipe up. Oh hush. You’re arguing by yourself.
Wow Kwark. Really? you post "Oh hush. When you can't defend an assertion you clearly made??
EDIT: I see you edited your post with "your arguing by youself" First of all, the validitiy of what I'm saying is not affected by how many people are arguing with me. Secondly, Haven't others chimed in making the same point? At least Gorsameth and Igne ? I wouldn't bring them up because it dosent affect whether my argument stands or not but since you did you should probably adress that.
|
On November 18 2019 07:54 Aquanim wrote:
So it looks like a gerrymander, swims like a gerrymander and quacks like a gerrymander, but it wasn't hatched from an egg like a gerrymander. Its effect on the world is still pretty similar.
Nope it doesn't look like a gerrymander at all. One is manipulation and re-drawing of boundaries the other doesn't touch boundaries at all but it is the consequence of representative democracy.
Its effect on the world is similar in the way that someone can be hit by a truck because the sun is in the driver's eyes or because someone is trying to murder them. The person's dead in both scenarios, one is far worse though.
|
On November 18 2019 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 02:34 Introvert wrote:On November 18 2019 01:19 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 01:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2019 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 19:06 Slydie wrote:On November 17 2019 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2019 00:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think House Dems locked things in when they voted for the formal impeachment process. The nuance of "well I just voted for the process then against the articles" is not a concept that will be easily communicated to voters, and the actual justification for the flip flop is going to be difficult given that the substance of the facts were well known and now blanks are being publicly filled in.
You have more confidence in Democrats than I do. I think Pelosi didn't want to go down this road because she knows how cynical they are. Whether it's in the House or the Senate the bipartisan vote will be on the side of not impeaching. There's easily 30+ House Dems that would rather be on the side of the winning vote than be seen as being part of a failed partisan (they won't get any R votes) impeachment attempt and lose their seat in 2020. Trump won ~31 districts that Dems have seats in now, he needs ~18 House Manchins for this to die in the House and embarrass Pelosi/Dems. He got 2 already (so the bipartisan position is in opposition to impeachment in the house already) saying even going through the motions of the investigation was a waste. It is unclear if the Dems will win on this in the end, but with the evidence at hand, I don't think they had another choice. It won't pass the Senate, but revealing GOP and Trump corruption for the world should fire up their own supporters. The problem I'm highlighting is that it doesn't, as well as not firing up independents. Republicans+leaning isn't 50%, yet impeachment can't even clear 50% (needs at least 50% or people would have to vote against their constituents preference, but seems to be falling again). As someone who went through dozens of "oh the Democrats can't possibly do THAT's"over the past few years I can promise not only that they can, but their supporters will defend them for it as their only/best option no matter how ridiculous. As I said from the start the cop out they are going to go with (on both sides of the aisle) is that we can't impeach a president in an election year on a partisan vote (against a bipartisan one). You’re doing bad math here. Republicans may not have half the population but they don’t need that to have half the Senate. The inability to pass impeachment through the a Senate has nothing to do with popular opinion and everything to do with gerrymandering. You realize the Senate is a statewide election right? You can't gerrymander a Senate election. The issue is that the Democrat party is very regionalized and urban and its ethos and diaspora has an arrogant attitude towards a great deal (indeed, probably a majority) of the states in the country. Until they get out of their bubble it's going to be hard for them to grab decent majorities in the Senate for any sustained period of time. You absolutely can gerrymander the Senate by making a bunch of small rural states vs large populous urban states. The senate is completely unrepresentative of the population. California should be a dozen states with about 20 Democratic senators and 4 Republicans. Less than 10 years ago the Democrats had 60 senators (58+2 independents who caucused them), a percentage the GOP hasn't had since the 30s. The Democrats almost willingly gave up those seats because of the direction they took their party. There being small states really has nothing to do with anything that could be called gerrymandering, and using that word is an irrelevant, sorry excuse for a party's failure in the Senate. It's also why I find complaints about the Senate to be rich. Less than a decade ago they had a filibuster proof caucus. Now they whine that it's unfair. Can you please elaborate on this? What direction are you referring to?
The Democratic party has stopped seriously portraying itself as the "working man's party." Their position on things like immigration, trade, an crime have moved further left. They are giving up voters in Wisconsin for voters in Arizona. Their problem is that places like Arizona and Georgia aren't actually blue yet, so they struggle. (of course, Wisconsin is hardly red)
We can see this in looking at who votes for whom now. Remember, there are sizable groups of voters who were "Obama-Trump" and a lot of voters who were "Romney-Clinton." That's what's happening.
The Democratic coalition is changing from poor/rural voters (many white), urban minorities, and city dwellers, to urban minorities, city dwellers, and, increasingly, certain suburbanites. We saw this starkly in 2016, 2018, and in elections since. Just last night, the conservative Democrat gov of LA won re-election, but with a much different group of voters than Democrats used to get (his election in 2015 was a little odd, so that is ignored).
|
On November 18 2019 08:06 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 07:54 Aquanim wrote:
So it looks like a gerrymander, swims like a gerrymander and quacks like a gerrymander, but it wasn't hatched from an egg like a gerrymander. Its effect on the world is still pretty similar. Nope it doesn't look like a gerrymander at all. One is manipulation and re-drawing of boundaries the other doesn't touch boundaries at all but it is the consequence of representative democracy. Its effect on the world is similar in the way that someone can be hit by a truck because the sun is in the driver's eyes or because someone is trying to murder them. The person's dead in both scenarios, one is far worse though.
The senate isn't a representative democracy. The senators don't represent the people, but the states.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
|
United States43437 Posts
On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Chunks of countryside don’t deserve representation, people do. It’s a zero sum game, you can only give representation to land by taking it from people. I’ve yet to see a good argument for why the cornfields of Iowa deserve representation over the citizens of Los Angeles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
