Quo Vadis GOP?

[Eddie Teach]

I avoid careful analysis like the plague. I just post whatever random BS I happen to think about.

One of your finest qualities.

[ulmont]

It just seems a much lesser issue here, which leads me to believe that the problem is not insoluble - using a separate commission is simply a better process.

I mean, if it can be done, universally.

Nah.  You have to choose what is your primary goal first, and that's a fundamentally political (in the most broad goal of garnering general support for a path forward) approach.

Look at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/ for 5-7 different approaches that could be considered "fair".

[alfred russel]

This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

Those seem like different statements. Sure there is no universally agreed upon standard but since when must something be perfect or universally agreed upon? Very few issues have that going for them. But just because the perfect does not exist doesn't mean there can be no solution or that it is impossible to solve.

Sometimes an imperfect fix is much worse than an unaddressed problem.

There is a partisan skew in concern regarding gerrymandering. Democratic states have been much more proactive in implementing reforms vs. republican states. The result is that it appears likely the republicans are going to take control of the house in 2022 through the redistricting process alone - even if the same people show up to the polls as in 2020 and vote the same way as in 2020.

[/quote]The same technology and analytics that are currently make the drawing of the districts so corrupt can also be used to improve them, given a reasonably agreed upon set of principles.[/quote]

But there aren't a reasonably agreed upon set of principles. That is my point.

Politicians setting up "neutral" redistricting have a variety of principles they can choose between. Current technology and analytics make it very easy to see what the outcome of those principles will be. You've just moved the gerrymandering process from the explicit drawing of lines to the selection of the program principles to draw them.

A lot of redistricting proposals have 2 components:
1) most take into account prior maps (which practically makes sense, because most districts have roots going back over 100 years, and starting from scratch seems a bit radical)
2) they are part of state constitutions: this is necessary to shift the power from elected representatives

But together, to the extent the current map is gerrymandered, constitutionally mandate the continuation to some extent the previous regime, with limited ability of future legislatures to revise.

[Malthus]

It just seems a much lesser issue here, which leads me to believe that the problem is not insoluble - using a separate commission is simply a better process.

I mean, if it can be done, universally.

Nah.  You have to choose what is your primary goal first, and that's a fundamentally political (in the most broad goal of garnering general support for a path forward) approach.

Look at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/ for 5-7 different approaches that could be considered "fair".

Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

Again, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them

... but that's not the debate.

Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?

[garbon]

Other countries exist?

[grumbler]

Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?

Indeed.  I've been advocating looking at various proven solutions to the health care problem, as well.  The problem is that there are many powerful stakeholders in the present system.

[DGuller]

I think gerrymandering and healthcare are both problems which are entirely solvable if only the country were united in political will to do so, as the highest priority.  It also goes for a lot of other things as well, like police reform.  Institutional barriers and resistance are real, but they're far more effective when they know that one of the parties can always get on their side to spite the other party.

[Admiral Yi]

I think gerrymandering and healthcare are both problems which are entirely solvable if only the country were united in political will to do so, as the highest priority.  It also goes for a lot of other things as well, like police reform.  Institutional barriers and resistance are real, but they're far more effective when they know that one of the parties can always get on their side to spite the other party.

What would be the easy fix for police reform?

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.

[DGuller]

What would be the easy fix for police reform?

A good start would be federal standards for training anyone who would be entitled to shoot someone while wearing a badge.  Citizens have constitutional rights regardless of whether they're interacting with a Bumfuck County deputy Sheriff, New Jersey State Police trooper, or FBI special agent.  My understanding is that in Europe, you have to train for years to become a police officers in some countries, whereas in US you training may take weeks.

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.

That's one obvious solution, but it's not the most realistic one.  Another obvious solution would be imposing standards that are agreed upon as fair enough.  If such an agreement would lead to an immediate disadvantage to one party or the other, then trade some other horse somewhere else, with the understanding by everyone that there is a positive-sum gain from eliminating something which is anti-democratic, and that sometimes SALT treaties are the way to go.

[The Brain]

In Sweden police training is 2.5 years.

[Valmy]

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.

Is it? Things can be incredibly unpopular with almost universal dislike for them and persist for decades.

[alfred russel]

Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

In 20+ years of languish, can you identify anyone who has advocated for gerrymandering, or that it is an awesome system?

Again, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them

... but that's not the debate.

Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?

It simply won't happen. It just isn't a high priority issue for voters and the vested interests are massive. I don't see why anyone would look at the US political system and think there is a way to fix this in the reasonably foreseeable future (say before the 2040 redistricting cycle).

[DGuller]

In Sweden police training is 2.5 years.

And they can't even shoot people properly after all that training.

[The Brain]

In Sweden police training is 2.5 years.

And they can't even shoot people properly after all that training.

[Admiral Yi]

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.

Is it? Things can be incredibly unpopular with almost universal dislike for them and persist for decades.

My statement was pretty tautological.  If GOP legislators didn't want to gerrymander any more they would stop doing it.