This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I wouldn't consider this to be a republican tactic, given that it was the VRA that enshrened it into law.
I don't know what relevance this has to my point, which is that it seems weird to identify lubricating the voting process as technically legal but actually illegitimate while ignoring the myriad of other technically legal things done to de facto disenfranchise voters unless you are alleging that it fatally compromises election security.
The VRA and associated case law impose specific requirements on how you draw districts with respect to minority populations. They do not in any way mandate the partisan gerrymandering you see in numerous states (including, prominently, Texas).
More options
Context Copy link
Not to mention that "gerrymandering," both the term and the practice, predate the founding of the Republican Party by several decades. Elbridge Gerry, the politician that the term was named for during his lifetime, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and later Vice President under James Madison. The Republican Party wasn't founded for fifty years after Gerry's death. Ironically in this case, Gerry was a member of the precursor to the Democratic Party.
It's tedious when people get so worked up over gerrymandering. The practice is universal and has been for literally centuries. It's also better than the alternatives, because those either rely on myths like "actors outside the political system" or reduce accountability to the electorate, or both. Gerrymandering is aesthetically ugly, but better that than moving to systems more prone to capture.
Or you decrease the size of districts such that it becomes harder to effect certain results based on demographic projections. If the original first amendment had been fully ratified, we'd have congressional districts an order of magnitude or more smaller than what they are now. Much easier to draw compact districts when they're that tiny.
True, though you end up hitting scaling issues wherever you end up on that balance. Larger districts put more distance between the citizen and his representative; smaller districts make for a different mix of coordination issues at the elected level. I realize this is moving away from strict "how to draw district lines" analysis, but there are second and third order knock-on effects.
This was one factor deliberately introduced that contributed to different organizational cultures in the US House and US Senate. The House was always the larger body, with correspondingly smaller districts (in most cases). While there were other factors adding to the effect and some ebb and flow over time, the presiding member of the House always had more centralized power than in the Senate, due to how the coordination issues were resolved differently.
Over the past couple of decades, the Senate has shifted organizationally to become closer to the House; one reason I find Senator Sinema (D-AZ) interesting is that she appears to be an institutionalist who wants to reverse that trend and bolster the individual-Senator prerogatives against Senate leadership.
If House districts were downsized substantially, increasing the size of the House accordingly, a strong institutional effect would be to empower the Speaker, other House leadership, and the parties. The House is already prone to party-line voting now; this change would push further in that direction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Gerrymandering has been around in some capacity for centuries, but a) that's not a defense of an odious practice b) it is false to say that it is universal. Numerous states have independent redistricting commissions and even when they don't they don't always gerrymander.
Relative to what? I would remind you that hardcore partisan gerrymandering is a relative novelty and for a long time one of the major aims of gerrymandering was protecting incumbents. And what basis do we have to think gerrymandering is superior to boundary commissions?
More options
Context Copy link
Do you include computer / algorithmic generated districts that use compactness and county / geologic boundaries to compute and score districts?
I've seen proposals I would prefer to those drawn by committee.
Yes, I'm familiar with the "set rules, draw by algorithm" method. (And there are rules that people find generally agreeable for this process; compactness and existing political/geological boundaries are good examples.) One issue is that when you make a list of popular and well-justified rules, it becomes hard to simultaneously satisfy them. The bigger deal is that someone has to code the setup, and someone has to approve the result, and these are capturable positions. Unfortunately, it is very very hard to make a job "apolitical" and also retain accountability in cases where a partisan sneaks in--Madison et al. tried their best at this exact problem with judges, and various controversies with the judiciary only emphasize the limited success you can have.
...There's another, and much bigger problem, though. If you district by naive algorithm like this, Republicans win the districting process an overwhelming majority of the time. The reason is the actual, on-the-ground political map--Democrats tend to cluster in cities, Republicans dominate the towns and rural areas. The goals with political gerrymandering are sometimes known as "packing and cracking"--pack one district with all the opponent voters you can stuff in, 90%+ if you can get it, and crack other concentrations between districts, with no more than 40-45% opposition. If your opposition is already clustered, packing and cracking are much easier to accomplish using inoffensively shaped districts.
If compact districts favoured Republicans as much as you think they do, then Republican legislatures would draw maps with compact districts. The fact that Republicans are drawing salamander-shaped districts suggests that the bias inherent in compact districts (which is real) isn't enough to satisfy them.
Incidentally, if you measure bias as "who gets more seats when the popular vote is a 50-50 split" then the largest natural bias is the one if favour of the party whose safe seats have lower turnout.
...or that there are other considerations in play, such as that it's been illegal for them to do so for some time, in large part because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which mandated racial demographic consideration (a requirement for gerrymander) and federal approval of changes (an obstacle to breaking it). Federal preclearance was only voided for a number of Republican-controlled states in 2013. There has literally only been 1 census cycle, and one congressional district reorientation, since then.
At which point you not only have the specter of (already ongoing) lawfare, but the secondary implications of working from the inertia of already-existing political subdivisions, like state counties, which themselves are often the anchoring points of congressional districts, and the political power structures that exist within and amongst these that interacts with what the legislatures can do. Even if an entire legislature was held by the Republicans, just the nature of the patronage network disruption and individual self-interests would make it a fratricide-heavy environment to pick the winners and choosers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree it's hard to fill any political position with non-partisans, not too different than what we have presently.
I also agree it's difficult to 'optimize' for many inputs / variables simultaneously.
Given that; I think having a set number of candidate maps perhaps with different measures of compactness and / or different weightings of the well justified rules. The apolitical / political could then vote / choose among the candidate maps. This I believe would still be a more apolitical and transparent process than what we have now.
That members of one party may choose to live in cities, disproportionately, doesn't strike me as an argument in favor of not adopting a more transparent process. Nor do I find the argument that if we don't gerrymander, Republicans win, convincing.
With regard to voting on a selection of maps--one of the issues here is you can get pretty big effects from nudging lines a relatively small amount, or at least what looks like a small amount from looking at a map. As a practical matter, voters are just going to be considering big-picture aesthetics, and no matter how you rigorously define a "fair map," the difference between a fair map and an artfully-drawn map is really difficult to detect, much more so than I'd expect voters to want to master. It's actually a strong example of a policy area better handled through representation, which just takes us back to politically-drawn maps.
I should explain my last point better. It's not that there's a problem with Republicans winning a disproportionately large amount of the time--I would cough prefer that, myself. The problem is any specific party winning way more reliably and more often than relative vote totals suggest they should. Even if--as here--it would only be a result of neutral rules applied to the aggregate of people freely deciding where to live, the disproportionate result looks and feels unfair, which undermines popular happiness with the system and societal stability. Some of that is inevitable! But elections are supposed to generate results broadly reflective of underlying support over time, and an institutional skew in one direction cuts against that.
From the maps I've seen i don't know that Republicans would be more likely to win in cities. I think they would be more likely to win in rural districts areas that sometimes include pie slices or slivers of the nearest city.
My preference would be to have the computer nudge the line based on publicly available inputs, weightings and published algorithm. Now the line is nudged due to a wink and a handshake or a horsetrade to keep / make a safe seat.
I'd rather argue over the inputs and design of the algorithm to be used over the entire state than the boundary or shape of any specific district. I'd expect wins and losses in any redistricting. If you believe compact non-gerrymandered districts would benefit Republicans that suggests to me they're disadvantaged presenty.
Republicans are rather unlikely to win very many city council seats in large cities, no matter what method you use. For state legislatures, though, the advantage of cities for Republicans is that they come pre-packed--it's trivial to draw compact districts where Democrats have a huge margin, which writes off those districts, but by concentrating opposition voters, allows for more success elsewhere. And yes, a mostly suburban/rural district with a small slice of city is generally a winnable district for Republicans, and an example of cracking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The usual ‘better idea’ than gerrymandering seems to be proportional representation, which is probably a poor fit to the US political system but for reasons other than the ones you’ve just described.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And challenging the signatures shouldn't count either, because you shouldn't have to be in power in order to do it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link