|
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 August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution?
Without looking into it I assume they require a certain % in attendance for a vote to be held? So they just dodge it until after elections are far enough along they borders cannot be changed. Perhaps even until after the elections, hoping there no longer is a majority for changing the borders.
|
It is so absurd that this is a thing. And that they no longer even try to hide it behind flimsy excuses.
|
On August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution?
They probably already have their own maps ready to gerrymand NY and California to get the seats back, but they do not want to go there, so they go for "absence" first.
That so many conservatives are fine with this is a major problem for the US democracy.
|
That redistricting is even a thing is a problem for US democracy...
|
On August 05 2025 18:18 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution? They probably already have their own maps ready to gerrymand NY and California to get the seats back, but they do not want to go there, so they go for "absence" first. That so many conservatives are fine with this is a major problem for the US democracy.
Democrats in California have 82% of House seats with 60% of the vote.
Gerrymandering has become reduced to a nonsense term these days. This is a Maryland Congressional district.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GxjGBP5XUAA7fng.jpg)
This is not gerrymandered because there are few districts of one party in small areas of high population density, and large swaths of the low population density part of the map another color, making a map look too much of one color - because land isn't people. This is not gerrymandered because the lines aren't straight, because people don't live in straight lines to begin with. This is not gerrymandered because one party had too much influence on the drawing. This isn't gerrymandered because its borders don't follow those of municipalities, because Congressional districts have to try to represent the same number of people but people don't live equally distributed among actually governed jurisdictions. (Whereas "city" and "county" and etc. lines actually mean something w.r.t the law and communities, Congressional districts are only for voting for federal representation and don't overlap the "actual" lines that subdivide states.) It's gerrymandered because look at it. That's the reason.
If you show people two maps with the same features and they only see unfairness in the one their team doesn't control, it's not gerrymandering at issue, it's base complaining.
District lines not being straight needs to be accepted. People winning more or less than proportional representation would allocate needs to be accepted. Those facts are necessary and normal. You have to draw a map somewhere. The fact that a map just isn't perfect isn't a problem per se. Because no map is perfect. There needs to be something more.
|
Oblade what is the rationale for the republicans in Texas to do this now as opposed to after the next census?
|
Norway28736 Posts
This is another issue that could be solved by proportional representation. If a state goes 60/40, let the representative go as close to 60/40 as possible and give D the districts they won by the biggest margin (or lost by the smallest), same for R.
|
On August 05 2025 19:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2025 18:18 Slydie wrote:On August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution? They probably already have their own maps ready to gerrymand NY and California to get the seats back, but they do not want to go there, so they go for "absence" first. That so many conservatives are fine with this is a major problem for the US democracy. Democrats in California have 82% of House seats with 60% of the vote. Gerrymandering has become reduced to a nonsense term these days.
The distribution in California says nothing about the issue.
If voters were spread out perfectly one party could take 100% of the seats with 51% of the votes.
60 for 80 seems like an actually fair system.
The question for Texas is; do Democrats already have an unfair advantage with the current districts that makes them overrepresented? It's probably unlikely since the new map would take 5 seats from the minority party.
Anyway the actual solution to this problem would be a constitutional amendment that adds some (~20%) "free" seats per state that gets assigned from non-winning votes. Makes it far less useful to redistrict and would also allow for smaller statewide parties to get a few seats.
|
On August 05 2025 19:37 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2025 19:07 oBlade wrote:On August 05 2025 18:18 Slydie wrote:On August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution? They probably already have their own maps ready to gerrymand NY and California to get the seats back, but they do not want to go there, so they go for "absence" first. That so many conservatives are fine with this is a major problem for the US democracy. Democrats in California have 82% of House seats with 60% of the vote. Gerrymandering has become reduced to a nonsense term these days. The distribution in California says nothing about the issue. If voters were spread out perfectly one party could take 100% of the seats with 51% of the votes. 60 for 80 seems like an actually fair system. The question for Texas is; do Democrats already have an unfair advantage with the current districts that makes them overrepresented? It's probably unlikely since the new map would take 5 seats from the minority party. Anyway the actual solution to this problem would be a constitutional amendment that adds some (~20%) "free" seats per state that gets assigned from non-winning votes. Makes it far less useful to redistrict and would also allow for smaller statewide parties to get a few seats.
A lot of the problems in the US could be solved by changing the election system in a variety of ways, but none of them are going to happen, because it would require both parties to work together, and at least one of them always profits from the way stuff currently is.
Of course the whole district and gerrymandering thing is utterly silly and undemocratic, and it is not as if there are not dozens of well-established systems to avoid this problem in other countries.
But the US will not change stuff to a better system, because the people who would have to make that decision are the people who win in the current system. Why would they ever choose to change that system to one where they have less of an advantage?
|
On August 05 2025 19:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2025 18:18 Slydie wrote:On August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution? They probably already have their own maps ready to gerrymand NY and California to get the seats back, but they do not want to go there, so they go for "absence" first. That so many conservatives are fine with this is a major problem for the US democracy. Democrats in California have 82% of House seats with 60% of the vote. Gerrymandering has become reduced to a nonsense term these days. This is a Maryland Congressional district. This is not gerrymandered because there are few districts of one party in small areas of high population density, and large swaths of the low population density part of the map another color, making a map look too much of one color - because land isn't people. This is not gerrymandered because the lines aren't straight, because people don't live in straight lines to begin with. This is not gerrymandered because one party had too much influence on the drawing. This isn't gerrymandered because its borders don't follow those of municipalities, because Congressional districts have to try to represent the same number of people but people don't live equally distributed among actually governed jurisdictions. (Whereas "city" and "county" and etc. lines actually mean something w.r.t the law and communities, Congressional districts are only for voting for federal representation and don't overlap the "actual" lines that subdivide states.) It's gerrymandered because look at it. That's the reason. If you show people two maps with the same features and they only see unfairness in the one their team doesn't control, it's not gerrymandering at issue, it's base complaining. District lines not being straight needs to be accepted. People winning more or less than proportional representation would allocate needs to be accepted. Those facts are necessary and normal. You have to draw a map somewhere. The fact that a map just isn't perfect isn't a problem per se. Because no map is perfect. There needs to be something more. That is actually not a Maryland Congression district.
Anymore.
It used to be from 2013-2023 and was the 3e least compact congressional district in the US. it was gerrymandered to fuck.
A voting district should be a single continuous uncomplex shape of whatever dimension is required to encapsulate the required population level. Where possible it should not divide cities or towns, tho in the case of major cities this is not an option.
This is the new and current congressional district map of Maryland following the 2020 Census.
Without any further knowledge of Maryland at all, it looks a lot more reasonable to me.
![[image loading]](https://planning.maryland.gov/Redistricting/PublishingImages/maps/2020cong/LRAC-congressional-sw.png)
There is a gap between 'not having strait lines' and the mad scrawling of a 2y old child where you can fit a reasonable congressional district.
|
Not having strait lines is also pretty much the dumbest argument against gerry mandering that one could make and I haven't seen anyone here doing that...
|
just Trump using the already available corruption with the gerrymander and turning it up to 11. Republicans happily oblige.
Dems face a dilemma.
something you can only face if you have at least a teeny tiny bit of morals. Republicans just fall in line when their leader calls.
the amount of stink you could make... let them arrest you. you do this as the whole Dem representation that "fled" and let them fight it in court but more importantly in the court of public opinion. unprecedented levels of righteous indignation. and eyeballs.
people will rally for you, giving a damn for what's right and getting arrested for it? what's more American than that?
in addition you give people room and a reason to vent. the amount of actual disdain for Republican policies is off the charts, and that's before the health care cuts - with hundreds of rural hospitals on chopping block - come into effect.
Republicans rehabilitated depraved and misguided Jan06ers - a ton of them actually criminal - and you wanna tell me you cannot do this for standing up to corruption a child can understand? that it's majorly fucked that politicians are able to willy-nilly choose their voters instead of the other way round?
|
Half of voting Americans voted for this. Enough about Trump and his agenda was known. Don't assume they are unhappy with whats happening.
His favourability in general might be very low, but with Republicans, so the one that actually matters until at least the midterms, its something like 95%.
Just split the country and be done with it.
|
I have a vague hope that a "common reality" can be restored.
at least insofar that the pain Trump causes will be enough to burst the bubble. for "non true MAGATs" and other swing voters.
a critical mass of voters is all you need... well it was until that whole gerrymander discussion got started. with maps hopelessly skewed towards one party who knows what might happen.
|
There is no actual diffrence between "true maga" and "normal" republicans, if there is any at all then that "not-maga" republicans will vote for R no matter what but "true maga" will stay at home when Trump isn't on a ticket. That actually makes "not-maga" even more deranged than Trumps most feverish cultists.
Swing voters between R and D are basically a myth, these are so few, they don't matter. There are way more voters that vote Democrats or not at all or Republican or not at all and these seem to vote more on vibes than anything else.
|
My view on the 2024 election is: Democrat Elites n wanted neither Biden or Harris. And the Gaza/Israel FLARE of attention was orchestrated by russia, tech bros controlling algorithms and corporate news.
Biden/Harris were just tasked with "solving israel - real quick - but without playing hardball with israel.. because.. they are allies and jews in the us need to feel save.
And now the topic has died down because the protestors are raided by ICE and if they speak their mind, their uni will kick them out.
Harris lost by people not voting, democrates rather questioning every minute detail of themselves, than a rapist pedophile who literally wants to turn Gaza into a real estate project and will still shake hands with Netanyahu .. who just announced that Gaza will now will be indefinitively occupied by Israel forces. Next step: Bringing in Settlers, pushing the local population... somewhere.
|
On August 05 2025 19:37 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2025 19:07 oBlade wrote:On August 05 2025 18:18 Slydie wrote:On August 05 2025 15:47 Velr wrote:
And is there any realistic scenario where the Democrats somehow "win" in this? Despite never showing up again which seems to be a strange solution? They probably already have their own maps ready to gerrymand NY and California to get the seats back, but they do not want to go there, so they go for "absence" first. That so many conservatives are fine with this is a major problem for the US democracy. Democrats in California have 82% of House seats with 60% of the vote. Gerrymandering has become reduced to a nonsense term these days. The distribution in California says nothing about the issue. If voters were spread out perfectly one party could take 100% of the seats with 51% of the votes. 60 for 80 seems like an actually fair system. The question for Texas is; do Democrats already have an unfair advantage with the current districts that makes them overrepresented? It's probably unlikely since the new map would take 5 seats from the minority party. Anyway the actual solution to this problem would be a constitutional amendment that adds some (~20%) "free" seats per state that gets assigned from non-winning votes. Makes it far less useful to redistrict and would also allow for smaller statewide parties to get a few seats.
California is actually worse than that. We have an "independent" commission that draws the lines but twice now Dems have stacked it. After 2020 they stopped pretending. Even a glance at the CA house map will show its absurdity. So they have a veneer of independence but really aren't. The head of the last commission has even come out in support of Newsom's (probably performative) attempt to further gerrymandering the state, just in case you wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. California has a state constitutional ban on mid-decade redistricting.
California is gerrymandered.
Chris Murphy is from CT, threatening retribution. His home state is 5-0 while Republicans won 40% of the house vote.
New York tried to make their map even more dem friendly, but the state's highest court even thought it was too egregious.
And of course, just to prove this all a big performance with no principle whatsoever, TX dems fled to Illinois, one of the worst gerrymander states. Republicans lost the overall house vote by 7 points, they have 3/14 seats. Just look at a map of IL house districts.
All of this is even more rediculous when you realize that even with changing coalitions, dem voters are generally spread less efficiently. Meaning more house seats "should" be Republican favored just due to geography.
This is all "resistance" for the sake of it.
|
Ya'll need some personalisiertes Verhältniswahlrecht.
|
On August 05 2025 21:45 KT_Elwood wrote:
My view on the 2024 election is: Democrat Elites n wanted neither Biden or Harris. And the Gaza/Israel FLARE of attention was orchestrated by russia, tech bros controlling algorithms and corporate news.
Biden/Harris were just tasked with "solving israel - real quick - but without playing hardball with israel.. because.. they are allies and jews in the us need to feel save.
And now the topic has died down because the protestors are raided by ICE and if they speak their mind, their uni will kick them out.
Harris lost by people not voting, democrates rather questioning every minute detail of themselves, than a rapist pedophile who literally wants to turn Gaza into a real estate project and will still shake hands with Netanyahu .. who just announced that Gaza will now will be indefinitively occupied by Israel forces. Next step: Bringing in Settlers, pushing the local population... somewhere.
Pro-Gaza voters mostly turned out for Harris. An argument could be made that she might've won Michigan by being more loudly pro-Gaza, but then she might've lost Pennsylvania by greater margins, so there's not a lot of evidence that this is what cost the election.
Exit polls show the real reason Trump won is because his support skyrocketed among Latinos, and the reason for that seems largely to be because the right-wing takeover of news/"alternative" news that's been going on the past ten years is even more pronounced in Spanish-speaking media. You know how a lot of Gen Z men have been radicalized into misogyny by youtube and twitter algorithms? That problem is even worse in non-English demographics.
|
unfortunately trapped in the "us vs them" and "I have to win at any cost" mindset.
so glad this brain rot is not freely shared on internationally available US outrage platforms who make money doing exactly that. sowing division and outrage while making huge amounts of money with the data.
right you guys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
