Gerrymandering is as Bad as Ever: Worst New Maps - TLDR News
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2022
- Gerrymandering has been a political issue for decades and... it's still terrible. So in this video, we'll review the latest changes to political boundaries & why gerrymandering is getting worse than ever.
Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
![🎮เกมยิงปืนใหม่ ภาพสวย และ สมจริงที่สุดในโลก [ BODYCAM ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/My3l1owRY9I/mqdefault.jpg)
I love US politics. It feels like watching a monkey doing something, getting punished for it, and then doing it again with a bit more effort to hide it.
I wish that Bulgaria wasn't the same tho.
I know this feeling very well too sadly...
@@vladimirspassov847 Well, unfortunately, I think there are many more countries like it. Ever noticed how similar Russia and the US really are in many different ways? Of course, everything is named differently. But is an oligarch not the same as a billionaire? Annexing parts of Ukraine is wrong and illegal (and it is), but overthrowing governments in central and south America is not? Hmm...
@@erwindewit4073 yes but billionaires have earnestly eared their earnings earnestly, whilest those ghastly oligarchs ger their money form communism and is bad.
/s
Russia (in the past USSSR) and USA behave in a imperialistic way, thats why both looked really similar
@@erwindewit4073 there are no oligarchs in russia as they have no power. russian billionaires are putin's bank accounts.
USA be like "we're aggainst corruption"
USA also be like "it's not bribes, its lobbying"
USA also be like "eh lets just close down voting stations in areas that wont vote for me, and redraw lines so those that do are more empowered"
Bribery and lobbying are two very different things
@@STEP107 please enlighten me on the difference. Paying a politician to keep your interests on the negotiation table when passing or vetoing new laws isn't bribery?
@@STEP107 obviously , one of them is legal
@@zurie35 The difference is the beneficiary. Bribery targets the politician or his personal friends and family directly in the form of direct gifts. Lobbying does not. The most common form of political benefit from listening to a lobbyist would be the promise of future political campaign contributions and votes from the demographic that the lobbyist represents. If the represented group is full of corporate interests, I'm sure you would take issue. However, if the represented group were comprised of, say, women disenfranchised by the repeal of Roe v. Wade, you probably wouldn't.
For the record, "lobbying" just means trying to influence a politician by getting them to pay attention and give consideration to a specific cause. Advocates for equal treatment of minorities have lobbyists. Advocates for trans people have lobbyists. Environmentalists have lobbyists.
All this is to say "lobbying" is not the problem. The vast difference between the influence and power of certain lobbyist groups is.
It's like disarmament. No party can stop gerrymandering, as that would just lead to them losing.
There is bipartisan unanimous that there may only be two parties and maximizing reelecting current members is the greatest possible good
Yep. Utah voted for a commission but the legislature just overwrote the commission anyway and made a gerrymandered map...
Yeah, this is why Democrats are pushing for rules that would prevent gerrymandering entirely. So long as it's an option, both sides have to play it.
@@timogul it is sad but true
Just like all politics in the U.S., change happens but only slowly. There's been enough outrage in some states that they started moving towards taking redistricting out of the legislature's hands, by the means that they had at their disposal. Someday (hoping soon) enough of these 50 states will work up good strategies to combat gerrymandering that everyone else will be able to adapt to their own state. My optimism may be wasted, but as long as the potential exists, there remains hope.
i still remember the famous quote from the movie Wargames: ‘ the only winning move is not to play(this quote is actually made by AI, which is now used to play the gerrymandering game by lawmakers or law firms hired by law makers)’. the only way to end gerrymandering is to replace the current single-member-district system with proportional representation. you can never draw a perfect map. an independent commission will not solve the problem.
Independent commisions aren't even solving the problem right now either.
Agreed with the independent commission thing. I'm not sure there is a good way to do it, whether partisan or not.
However, there's still a problem to be solved with proportional representation IMO. My representative in the House comes from the same geographical area I live in (roughly), so they are familiar with the issues in this area and represent them in Congress. Under a proportional representation system, what area do they represent now? What separates them from senators, just advocating for the state in general? Who represents me and my interests in this area?
Note I'm not against the idea -- I live in a very Red part of Illinois, and I agree with precisely 0% of my rep's views and votes, and would love someone I agree with to be my rep -- but I need to know who would represent my interests and views in the House. Do I just vote for who I want to be my rep? Do I sign up on someone's membership list? Or do I handle it like the Senate -- when something comes up, I turn to both of them to voice my opinion?
Of course, this is all pie in the sky thinking -- even if you solved that problem, there is 0% chance either major party will agree to a system like this, any minor party in favor of it is effectively locked out of the process entirely, and there is no Opt Out check box for the citizens short of emigration. We, as Americans, are stuck with the process they give us.
You can divise the map by a simple algorithm (like the shortest splitline algorithm). It will not be perfect, but it won't be gerrymandering.
As I understand U.S. constitution does not allow proportional representation. Members of congress must be elected in single-member-districts.
@@darabahrami184 no. Actually the constitution never said about that, but the federal law(2 U.S. Code § 2c ) does ban multi-member-district. So such electoral reform doesn’t need an amendment to the constitution, it just needs a simple majority of both senate and house
I am from Maryland, which has some of the worst gerrymandering in the country. I hope that this situation can be improved.
It cannot be improved. to many American don't know how broken their system is.
@@bzuidgeest all Americans know this. But half of the population doesn’t want to change it since if they did they would cease to win elections.
@@supergamergrill7734 I do like the fact you didn't say which half.
@@Noam_.Menashe thats because it changes every election
@@Noam_.Menashe Well it’s pretty evident that if you just looked at which voter base is smaller population wise.
It’s very important to add that in 2010, a republican effort called Project Red Maps helped coordinate republican gerrymandering. Project Red Maps wasn’t revived for 2022, so republican gerrymandering was much weaker than 2010. Another big trend in redistricting this year was, instead of drawing out the opposite party, many state parties put the incumbents of their party into much safer seats, leading to that staggering decline of competitive districts
Hi, Nick. I'm fairly new to all of this and seem to be missing something. What is the correlation between redrawing maps and representation?
Ok, but tell us about Project Blue Maps.
@@dannyarcher6370
🤨
@@SewerTapes America has a very rigid Two-Party system, so it’s very easy to tell with census data how a small area(called a precinct) voted(either democrat or Republican). Congressional districts are comprised of these precincts so they can be drawn in ways that advantage a political party
@@SewerTapes So first of all, it usually only works in states where there isn't a huge disparity between the two parties(US are primarily two parties, there are some others but they rarely amount to anything). If a state is 70-30 or more, it's unlikely to do much.
Now, let's discuss a simple example. 100 people, 60 blue, 40 red and 5 seats. Common sense would tell you it should be 3 blue and 2 red representative, but... that's not how the election works. Instead, the people are put into 5 groups of 20, based on the location of their primary residence, by drawing lines on the map to group the areas. And for each group thereof, a representative is selected based on the votes within that group.
In the most blue favored fashion, every group can be 12 blue and 8 red, winning all, thus 5 blue representative.
In the most red favored fashion, 3 of the group would have 13-14 reds and rest blue, winning 3 seats, the majority, despite the actual minority population.
And obviously, many other ways of grouping, like 2 pure red and 3 pure blue, which would actually come out fair.
Per above noted, the grouping is done via the map via location of residence, therefore manipulating the map will manipulate the groups and in turn the election result.
The effect is most significant when the difference is smaller. Whereas a fair system should yield roughly equal numbers when deviation is small, the difference can be huge if gerrymandering is used. The higher side can, in theory, win all the seats even with a tiny overall margin and the lower side can, in theory, win all except one seat despite... being lower(as long as the margin is smaller than the total population of one "group")
John Oliver did an episode of Last Week Tonight on this topic and goes into a reasonable amount of detail.
Gerrymangering is a symptom not the main issue. That's not having a proportional elections system.
Yep, amongst many other things... But a big one though.. (see 'UK').
Yea, the winner takes all system is so fucked up. It has lead to what is basically a two party system.
@@jokuvaan5175 Even worse, considering that it's not winner takes it all, but winner of winner of winner takes it all. It completely changes the result, similar to just rounding down numbers of smaller parties.
@@jokuvaan5175 cope harder
Fair Representation Act which would introduce STV to US house elections barely has any democrat support. Banning gerrymandering has most of the dem lawmakers on board. So FRA would be the gold standard but seems unlikely.
World greatest democracy 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't think he was questioning the democracy of the U.S. But if he was, he could easily say that the U.S. isn't among the top 10 best democracies, and he would be correct.
The Uighur genocide isn’t happening. It’s just neocon propaganda.
I don't see one
@@h..8083 Working for the CCP much? There’s already video recording of the Uyghur population being held en masse with their heads covered by a cloth piece as if they’re some sort of prisoner. Don’t try and bleach the painful sins from the CCP.
@@slimydoug2067 educate yourself about wahabism in west china
I see Gerrymandering as a game of chess played by the political parties, with every advance, there is a tactical retreat. However, this leads to the unfortunate result that states can become one party states. Even with independent commissions, it has still not resolved states that are effectively just run by a singular party at the state level, like in California. No matter how you slice it, California is a one party state with a minor Republican party that can't even do anything to stop the Democrats from doing whatever they want. One party run states are bad for every democracy. With no way to push back, bad ideas formed in echo chambers will just become law.
The same logic should be applied to Texas and the other southern states
They are all de-facto one-party states also
🤫
@@XavierbTM1221 Same with New York and Illinois
@@XavierbTM1221 not every southern state is 1 party. Georgia and Louisiana both have a significant Democratic presence and often flip flop. But your point is still basically correct
The US should really get rid of the electoral college and base seats off of the popular vote in elections.
@@isaacpowrie465 that has nothing to do with gerrymandering.
I have yet to be ensured that these "independent redistricting commissions" are any better than the state legislatures with regards to institutional bias in electoral policy.
As someone from Michigan I actually really like the map the Commission came up with. It makes sense based on geography/distinct regions within the State as well as increasing the amount of competitive seats.
I agree. Michigan probably got some of the best maps in the whole country.
Still, it increases the risk of losing all seats while having almost half the votes.
@@mreese8764 If single member seats and FPTP is retained, then that citizen commission is likely the best. A more radical reform would be multi-member districts with ranked choice voting.
I look at the Michigan map it's terrible Democrats have a 1 seat disadvantage and Michigan is about 50/50 so democrats should have four seats Republicans should have four seats and there should be one competitive seat
I'm no fan of FPTP but the Commonwealth countries that have single member districts (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ) all name their districts after a geographical feature in it. That's better than numbering them like in the US.
This is also a problem in the Philippines, except Gerrymandering isn't (just) for political parties, but usually for political dynasties who want more seats.
Honestly, district FPTP needs to stop or at least make it MMP.
MMP is a bad idea for a democracy as corrupt as the US. It still uses FPTP single member districts that can be gerrymandered. The party vote means parties can stick swamp creatures there so they can be removed by voters in the first vote but the party can just return them with the party list. You can open the party list but that just gets messy.
What you'd probably see is that the party / coalition in power will just reduce the party list seats to reduce the proportionality of the system without totally killing it. It takes a godly amount of energy and time to get reforms, get it right the first time.
This system works for Germany, NZ & Scotland but with US levels of corruption this is a bad choice. Norms and conventions still have some credence in these countries but in the US they go balls to the wall corrupt.
A better system is STV - ranked choice voting for all elections. For US house elections in states with enough seats use multi-member districts. That reduces the scope of gerrymandering as the gain would be marginal. It allows more parties like MMP without excessive fragmentation from a pure party list system.
FPTP is pretty crap in general...
@@theuglykwan The problem of multi-member districts in the case of the US is the country's obsession with giving representation to geographically concentrated minority groups. Drawing multi-member districts would limit the representation of black and latino communities that may be large enough to return 1 member but not multiple.
I don't think political parties in the Philippines have ever gerrymandered, they have never been given any chance at doing that. Usually its just political dynasties jerking with other dynasties. Not to mention how pretty much all local politician are basically turncoats which makes "partisan" gerrymandering impossible
@@joerionis5902 Fair enough. Partisanship isn't really a big deal as politicians tend to transfer to a party of whoever the President is
New Mexico dems drew the districts this way because in a neutral environment, they'll win 3-0. The GOP needs to carry the national vote by around 3-4 pts to win smth there.
In addition by splitting Abq, the most democrat part of the state into three parts where all three districts share at least parts of ABQ further diluting the votes of those in the south, north and even those from Abq. Imagine if you live in ABQ and you are ignored by the three representatives as other areas of the district needs more of their attention? So by dividing Abq into three parts they are also like ignoring the people of ABQ as well as they are split into three different camps
They also intentionally drew the districts in a way that minimizes the amount of split ticket voters in each district by splicing cities and suburbs with those tendencies. So while two districts are less blue, dem incumbents are going to have a much easier time keeping their voters in line
The NM map will give dems all 3 seats in good years but in a bad year dems will have 1 or possibly zero seats. This is a gamble.
Republicans got scared drawing districts like that in TX last decade and decided not to do that again since in 2018, dems gained 12 state house seats. They'd rather reduce the competitive seats so not matter what dems won't get the majority.
I dont think it really matters, but each of new Mexicos districts are all Hispanic plurality/majority. I dont understand why the race bill from the 60s dont apply.
As a Republican I really am perfectly fine with the current NM map. And besides in 2018 the Democrats were still able to win all 3 districts under the old map anyways. The Illinois map is definitely one map that should be challenged due to that crazy strip district between St Louis and Springfield.
Fun (historical) fact, from someone from Massachusetts where this all started: Elbridge Gerry was pronounced as "Garry" (hard g) and the original portmanteau was thus "garry-mandering."
Yes it's also in the video not just from Ted ed
Ha ha ha Gary
I’m so proud of michigan for passing laws to stop this nonsense!!
If only all states would! I want mine to do it as soon as possible, but that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.
NY had a law with "nonpartisan committee" which had reps from both sides. Since all the reps are super non-compromising, they couldn't agree on a map. The state legislature gets to decide after deadline.
most seats (if fair) would be highly competitive in Michigan.
so thats good
Maybe we should look towards independent district mappers. Or like iowa where they use ai to map their districts.
Need independent commission
Be careful with ai, it isn't a silver bullet. An ai with bday input or programming will be as bad or worse. Consider that most gerrymandering is also done by ai
Or, just proportional representation. Solves the whole issue
@@frankkobold d'hondt for the win
@@frankkobold with proportional representation you don’t have a representative assigned to your district to represent you . which is a huge drawback of the proportional representative system
You cannot improve what you don't have. The US political system is so broken it don't think it qualifies as a democracy. Remove the districts. And use proportional representation. Allow for new parties. After that I do might consider it a democracy
I agree. This is not democratic at all. For me it just sounds stupid and unfair one way or another. Proportional representation sounds a lot better. If you get 55 % of the votes, you get 55% of the seats….. that is a lot more democratic and it gives smaller opinions, groups and parties also a chance of representation.
Unfortunately, this system with districts is used in more countries. At the last UK elections the Tories won more than half the seats, with about 35 % of the popular vote. Bizarre.
Of course it doesn't qualify as a democracy. It wasn't intended to be a democracy and so wasn't created as a democracy.
@@johnverweij8368 The UK things isnt because of Gerrymandering though. It is called first past the post. Each seat is won based on simple majority so yes depending on how the votes are spaced out you can win more than your national vote. In fact, wales which is labour supporting and Scotland actually have too many seats for their population so technically the conservatives should have more. Its actually a decent system because it prevents there from being a constant hung parliament since the UK has the vote split in such a way that we would always require a coalition every single election. Jesus we dont want that.
@@NoticemeSinPi
A republic is a democracy! It's a representative democracy, as every other democracy on Earth is.
@@NoticemeSinPi interesting, then what was it supposed to be because all I hear from Americans is what a great democracy they think they have
The thing I don't understand is why politicians draw maps. It should be independent people who study population and they should use a map that ONLY has population in areas (ie: counties), and does not include profiles such as age, race, gender and party affiliation.
no minority representations is important
If we got rid of the House, it wouldn't be an issue
@@gusgrow9768 not as important as the majority
Or abolish voting districts all together and just allocate seats based the percentage or amount of votes each party gets
@@siruranos9172 Democrats allow illegals to vote so Democrats would always get allocated most of the seats
Small correction: Apparently, Gerry's name was pronounced with a hard "g", but the term "gerrymander" has since been pronounced as you said it here, despite the etymological difference.
Fun Fact: Elbridge Gerry’s last name is pronounced with a “G” as in “Gary”, not like a J as in “Gerrymander”
The British say a “thank god” for having the Boundary Commission.
Not really, the tories corrupt everything and are redrawing constituency boundaries with little resistance.
@@sueyourself5413 they aren't gerrymandering it they're making spaghetti trying to map 20 years of population change in some areas. 5% threshold + requirement to follow existing administrative boundaries wherever possible give the commission very little wiggle room but to do something fair but fugly.
@@catmonarchist8920 There is gerrymandering-lite in the UK. It is no way near the levels of the US but both parties get people to testify to affect the drawing of lines. Under New Labour they did it well to squeeze out some more seats. Then they dropped the ball and consservatives have been better at it.
They do this in California too and they've been caught where people not even residing in the state give testimony, pretending to be local residents. The legislature deliberately restricts the resources of the commission to limit their ability to delve too hard.
It's still way better than just letting lawmakers draw the lines.
The UK system is precarious. It basically relies on norms and conventions. If Tory decided to scrap the comission or remake it into puppet commissioners to gerrymander the crap out of the maps we'd be up shit creek. A govt with a majority can basically change most of the rules in our system. It will work until the norms and respect for convention breaks down. If Scotland leaves then it seems unlikely that Tories could lose so they could gerrymander themselves into invincibility.
Why not simply use a popular vote? Why do you need the middle man (districts)? Come on, we don't live in 1800 anymore where you need days for news to travel...
@@annekekramer3835 Because it's a parliamentary system where each area sends a representative individual in a non-partisan electoral system rather than voting directly for a party. If it were a presidential election or something for a single position then the popular vote is fine.
As someone from Ohio I am glad we passed the amendment to our constitution to stop gerrymandering. Our court has struck down the map a second time. Which is good because this is a serious problem.
It did not work.... They don't care about laws or the constitution....Just power.
I like that this channel doesn't just shit on one side but actually sheds light on both sides.
Gerrymandering is one of the political things that both parties are equally guilty of.
America, please implement a multi-party system already
No
They technically DO have a multi-party system. It's just that none of the other parties have enough financial support to have a presence in every state, like the Dems & Reps do. And compelled action is just as bad as compelled inaction.
We technically do have multiple parties they are all just really really irrelevant. Libertarians, constitutionalists, communist party of america, social democratic party of america, green party. (There is also independents who are probably the most powerful 3rd party, bernie sanders and a few other politicians are technically independents but they vote with democrats in everything)
@@STEP107 well, yes, but even among anglosphere countries with similar systems, 3rd parties have some minor representation on a national level, electorally.
Well the US kinda does actually. Democrats and Republicans are just catch all parties with multiple factions fighting for control of the party. Republicans are the Neo-Cons, Libertarians, the McCarthists, The Trumpers, Moderate Conservatives, Constitutionalists and Christian theologians. The Democratic Party is composed of the socialists, progressives, the Greens, the Black Caucus, the Latino caucus, Neo-Libs, The "Woke," and Blue Dog/moderate Dems. It's the Reason why we see "infighting" of the parties all the time. they're not really in fighting so much, they're just different political parties fighting for control over their side of the ship. Its the reason why we people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump all in the same party, when they all have clearly different ways of thinking. Much like how AOC, Nancy Pelosi and Tulsi Gabbard are really opposed to each other.
However, when these parties make their own parties outside of the Republicans and Democrats, they become political purest and staunch ideologues and fail hard at the polls. Republicans and Democrats are just pseudo-coalition parties like we see in Europe. The Trumpers and Neo-Cons are fighting for control over the republican coalition, while the Progressives and Wokists are fighting the Neo-Libs for control over the Democrats. Biden was just the Neo-Lib attempt at a cease fire during the 2020 presidential race to get Trump out of office where Biden gave lip service to the progressives to get their votes but failed to deliver the change they wanted in his first year.
When looking at the two party system in the US, all I say to our european counterparts, don't look at them as if everyone in the parties are the same when they are not.
I feel like TLDR US is the smallest channel because it has the least amount of uploads. I follow all 4 channels and the majority of content is on the UK and Global, the subscriber counts reflects that. Personally US news interests me the most and Id love to see more of it
It also doesn't help that the videos seem to favor the political left
@@AndrewRusherLDS how so?
@@geezer1024 watch the videos than look at how the left & right report on the same issue
@@AndrewRusherLDS A video in which its' only possible political message is 'let non-partisan committees draw electoral maps not parties' is neither left nor right it's right in the centre
Hey hey hey! I've been waiting to hear that, too!!
Great update but one minor point. It's true that census derived redistricting will only happen again in 2032, however ballot initiatives and court decisions drive redistricting much more frequently than that. Here in North Carolina we've had many different redistricting efforts in the last few years.
In my opinion the best and fairest solution is to devise a simple mathematical formula for drawing the districts.
Something along the lines of drawing the shortest line that splits the population in half. Repeat as needed until you have the number of districts required.
Certainly not perfect, there will be odd districts and some weighted one way or another, but it's far less susceptible to corruption and bias. And it doesn't pick favorites.
One weak point would be the census, if you can manipulate who gets counted you can manipulate the lines on the map. Still better than the blatant corruption now.
What can be done about Gerrymandering? Stop using First Past the Post!
There are several ways you can ensure local representation and still end up giving each party roughly the number of seat corresponding to the number of people who voted on them. Every vote should matter, it doesn't in FPTP and that's a tragedy.
??? FPTP in US????
@@chemicalfrankie1030 The most common method used in U.S. elections is the first-past-the-post system, where the highest-polling candidate wins the election. Under this system, a candidate only requires a plurality of votes to win, rather than an outright majority.
Should take reform Jefferson method or Proportional Seat
@@yukkurioniisan And what is worse to me, is that anyone who didn't vote for the winner gets no representation.
FPTP can make voting feel like it doesn't matter, whereas in a proportional representative system, even if you lose in the district, your vote will be reflected in the final outcome and distribution of seats.
So a proportional system actual means that every vote matters. But since proportional systems also means you avoid the spoiler effect, and thus third parties become viable options, neither Democrats, nor Republicans have any insentive to break with FPTP as it keeps them in power.
@@thomasbybjergbrock2227 Louisiana have a run-off system.
As a resident of NY-10, I just have to say:
Technically it makes sense for those parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn to be connected, to connect the mainly Jewish areas of NYC. But it’s especially egregious that they snaked through blocks in Cobble Hill and Downtown Brooklyn because they extended NY-11 to Park Slope, meaning the usual route to access Borough Park from NY Bay through the Southern areas was blocked.
What does this mean
A first-past-the-post election systems in the USA and UK have so many problems.
Both countries should just go to proportional representation, like my country did in 1917.
In the Computer Age, this system is just hopelessly out of date and too easy to corrupt.
This is a danger to democracy, all seats should be competitive.
Cope
We already use some form of PR for almost all elections in the UK, just not for the general election which is the most important. The other last hold out was local elections in England which are now allowed to use STV.
For local elections in Scotland, Ireland (not sure about Wales) they use STV. We used party list for former European Elections. We use MMP or STV for devolved assemblies.
UK general elections should use the system we invented - STV (multi-member districts with ranked choice voting).
@@theuglykwan STV was proposed and was rejected by 1 vote in the HoC back in 1917 I believe.
US needs mixed-member proportional representation. Voters get two votes: one to decide the representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party. Single-seat constituencies should be elected first-past-the-post, while the party vote is elected through party-list proportional representation (parties need to hit the 5% threshold to enter the legislature).
The problem with that is the whole point of Representatives is to represent their area. That’s not going to actually happen if you remove the districts and stick with proportional. Perhaps a better option is a mixed one? All states get the district reps they currently have that remain FPTP, plus an additional number of reps equal to half their district reps that are doled out based on porportional representation.
So for example, California has 53 representatives at the moment. Those will still be voted on by their district. Add in 26 representatives to be the porportional representatives, for a total of 79 representatives. Based on the last election that would give them 55 Democrats, 18 Republicans, and 7 other. That puts it far closer to California’s actual party breakdown, and it keeps the representatives for the districts.
The big issue is you’d have to greatly increase the House, which means we’d also have to expand the Capitol Building. Still, it’s a possibility to think about
Man. If only there was a federal law that would end gerrymandering.
that would be unconstitutional violates the 10th
how do you "end" gerrymandering? The districts still have to be drawn somehow, and they'll inevitably favor one party or another. The only way to end gerrymandering is proportional representation
@@jcavs9847 there is no unfair district redrawing when there are no districts.
Just use proportional representation, problem solved
@@jcavs9847 independent Ai that draws lines based on population and maybe stuff like geographic borders (people behind on one side of a mountain have different interests than people on the other side)
@@alexanderzippel8809 tell that to the boundary commission for wales 😞
Kinda reminds me of what happened in Queensland, Australia in the 70’s/80’s
The gerrymander-salamander has been in my history textbooks!
The solution against Gerrymandering would be introducing a proportional representation system, because every vote should count.
And how would you choose your house representative?
@@TheQballChannel In multi-member congressional districts, in which the people are representated by more than one representative. Thus, also the minor party gets a seat, if it's election results are high enough.
@@Ch-xk5tv would be awesome but that's not how it works currently
@@Ch-xk5tv I thought you were on about the presidential system
@@TheQballChannel Gerry-mandering can not impact the presidential election, except in NE and ME.
Now, it's worth noting that the SHAPE of a district does not indicate gerrymandering. If the district is shaped strangely, but still connects people of similar beliefs and voting patterns, it can still be representative of those people. What you need to look at is competitiveness and overall representation to tell if a map is bad or not.
It's a hard problem though to draw districts fairly and it's even harder to prove that they are drawn fairly, if not impossible. The better solution would be to get rid of district redrawing entirely and either keep them static, or even better, introduce proportional voting either state wide or on the federal level. States can still have their local representative competing.
Comparison between FPTP elections and a proportional outcome is not a good measure of unfairness.
Bipartisan gerrymandering is also a thing where both parties work together to make it so they are all uncompetitive
Bipartisan gerrymandering happened in CA in the 2000s. For the US house they got 1 more seat from reapportionment. That went to dems. Then there was 1 seat that went from repub to dems. That's all the seats that changed hands for that decade. There were barely even any competitive races despite 53 seats up every 2 years.
You can't fix gerrymandering as FPTP is completely broken on a fundamental level. You need multiseat areas, anything else is polising the turd.
the state of Tattoine is missing in the map
I studied poli sci. We had a whole test on how to Gerrymander.
The district I was assigned to in 2020 is the same one I'm assigned to this year, but because the district changed, I had to register to vote again.
To be fair, Maryland’s new map certainly is an improvement from the previous one
Either way Maryland should have 2 R districts one in each panhandle
@@NA.NA.. dude it’s a Biden 33 state
@@gusgrow9768 if you want to talk about percentages. Mathematically Maryland should have 2.8 R districts and 5.2 D districts based on data from an election where Republicans performed poorly.
A part of the reason the maps were so weird was because they drew the 3rd Congressional District as a way for the representative to boost their name in statewide primary elections. The district contains many different democratic base groups like working class whites, suburbanites, black voters, and even young college students. Win over them, and you’re sure to win statewide if you so choose
@@NA.NA.. fair
It's not a democracy when the outcome is predetermined. The argument that "we should do this because the other side did it" both tosses your principles in the trash and facilitates the continuous cycle of retribution.
Yeah but what can one really do? If the other side keeps doing it, being principled is just a sad consolation prize to losing all your seats
Nah, both sides should gerrymander as much as possible
Correction: The California Citizens Redistricting Commission adopted final congressional and legislative maps for the next decade, starting with 2022 elections.
this is a phenomenal video. definitely subscribing. well done
I am proud of my state Washington. But this is a huge problem for the country. We need a different system.
I wish y’all had shown a close-up of the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Truly some despicable gerrymandering.
It is disgusting but they did clean it up a bit
@@Log907 What do you mean by "they did clean it up a bit?" The new maps in D-FW are significantly worse than the old maps for Congress, the State House, and the State Senate.
@@metroidnerd9001 They cleaned it up to keep more communities together and compact. Now Dallas and Houston is still disgusting but compared to the last map they cleaned up the state well.
@@Log907 I don't understand how you can look at Texas' new congressional maps and say they "keep more communities together" and are "compact." San Antonio is split between 5 congressional districts, one of which stretches to El Paso, and two of which stretch all the way to Austin. The bulk of Houston is split between another 5 congressional districts, Dallas 6, and Fort Worth 4. Even suburbs aren't spared, with Plano split between 3 congressional districts (not to mention 5 State House districts), and Round Rock split by another 3. These districts are not compact in the slightest, and they are by no means "clean." Even if you're referring to the more rural districts, may I point out that Denton and Amarillo are in the same district?
I really don’t understand why the people responsible for making the voting districts are the very people who are elected? Who thought that would be okay?
This is the case in most countries
It's hard to have a threat to democracy when you don't have a democracy
in my country, there are 18 main districts, +2 autonomous reagions, +2 from emigrants.
the electoral maps are never changed, but the number of seats they elect are. after the census, the electoral comission divides the 231 seats by the 24 districs ( 4 seats are allways elected by the emigrants). Gerry mandering is extremelly hard. sure, there is injustice, mainly because there is a threshold to gain or lose a seat, so a distric may be gaining more population and other losing it, but the threshold isnt obtained and the seats arent actualized. but I find this system much better than the UK or US. My country is smaller than britan, and we are culturally unified, so the perfect system would be to abolish electoral districts (or keeping the autonomous reagions districs) and the rest goes to one electoral district, the entire country. this avoids votes beeing ignored. in the most recent election we had one party leaving parliament, but getting more votes than other party that got into parliament
Which country youre from if i may ask?
@@tauceti8060 portugal
It sounds like you have multi-seat districts. Thus as a parallel, your districts would be similar to American states but we have single set represenation which is why we have these issues.
0:10 This is incorrect. All states are required under the constitution and federal law to have equal population congressional districts in place for the 2022 elections. There are no exceptions. And it seems really odd to claim Montana might be late when they already have a congressional district plan enacted.
0:31 This is called _partisan_ gerrymandering, as opposed to other forms of gerrymandering (e.g. racial)
0:40 North Carolina and Ohio do not have finalized plans as their maps have been struck down by the courts (as you later note). As well, Washington enacted their plan the day before you posted this video, and Tennessee two days before that. The Upper Peninsula is part of Michigan and should be colored green.
1:22 A bit nit-picky but you've pronounced both of Gerry's names wrong (Elbridge not Eldbridge, and Gerry has a hard G)
2:56 That is not what that diagram is projecting. It's projecting the long-run makeup of the congressional district map, not the specific outcome of the 2022 election, which is likely to be redder than average. You make the same error at 3:25, 4:02, and 5:27
> Washington enacted their plan the day before you posted this video, and Tennessee two days before that
I mean, I think it's fair to assume videos might take as much as that from shooting to posting
While Nadler's new district is indeed egregious, it's actually less obnoxious than his old district.
I think all districts within a state should be required to have the same ratio of perimeter-to-area. That would ensure maps don't end up with a few large blocky districts and a few thin snaky districts -- either all the districts will have to be similarly blocky, or all the districts will have to be similarly snaky. The level of effort to make a map full of snaky districts, just to generate a couple districts that are snaky _for political gain,_ would thus give a significant advantage to just drawing a bunch of simple blocky districts.
It should be noted that despite the ballot initiative for an independent commission in Utah, the state legislature has voted to throw out the commission’s suggestion and make their own highly gerrymandered version, completely carving up SLC and Provo into multiple different districts to dilute the Democratic vote.
Ballot initiatives in Utah don’t actually matter, the legislature similarly overturned the legalisation of marijuana 5 or 6 years ago despite the ballot initiative succeeding
If we really want to call ourselves a democracy, ballot initiatives need to be one of the strongest forms of laws out there, since they come directly from the people. The legislature should only have the power to overturn them through the passage of a constitutional amendment or another ballot initiative.
At least Utah has a ballot initiative process in the first place. Here in Texas, we only get to vote on things after the legislature has passed them with a 2/3rds majority. For all intents and purposes, we're just a rubber stamp and have no power to do anything substantive on our own.
What's this white noise in the background?
dont hear any
I don't hear a white noise, might be on your end
You realy have good headphones. I hear too on my izodinamics
@@regieegseg8588 i didnt use headphone soo maybe thats why
Thank you for great videos
I don't know but since I put up my sign on the front yard, they've redrawn the district around me.
We really need proportional representation
Gerrymandering should only be allowed if it makes funny shapes on the map. Like a huge middle finger in Texas, a massive piece of male anatomy in California, a swastika in North Dakota! You are destroying democracy, but at least it's entertaining.
I second this
Michigan Democrats objected to its new district map because Detroit wasn't gerrymandered. While using gerrymandering as þe basis of þeir objection.
I thought they rejected bc it was too republican for the states lean.
Only one party fields a candidate where I live. I don’t even get options.
Why is it that the democratic examples of gerrymandering aren't reported as in contention, while more of the republican examples are being struck down by the supreme courts? I mean this as a genuine question, and not as a rhetorical question. If you know the answer, please reply.
I agree. The Republican maps get struck down, while the Democrat maps are left alone..despite CLEAR manipulation. This is why the Right has gotten more extreme over the last decade
The Democrats have alot of activist judges in the courts
Simply put: the Voting Rights Act. Democrats gerrymander around partisan lines by usually packing rural, conservative voters into one giant district or like NY they try to link competitive districts with more Democratic-friendly areas making them much easier to win come elections.
The Republicans do all of that too, but they also have a knack of trying to dilute minority voters (mostly Black voters) by targeting areas with high population of minority voters. They do so by cracking urban areas into smaller chunks or cramming them into one big district like you see in Alabama. This goes against the VRA and as a result, gets stuck down. NC has a history of trying to minimize the Black voting block for a while now and not surprised that they are once again in a legal mess with their map.
Most examples are due to the text and history of the voting rights act. It just so happens that most racial minority groups vote disproportionately for democrats. In the last 3 Presidential Elections, Black Americans have voted 93% Democrat, Latino's 67% Democrat, Asians 67% Democrat. This is important to know because when you gerrymander as a republican, your purpose is to minimize the votes of democrats. But what happens when minority communities are supermajority democrat? Well, minimizing the democrat vote means that you just so happen to also minimize the votes of minority racial groups. That runs afoul of the court's interpretations of the law in some cases despite no racist intent whatsoever.
The US keeps surprising me time and time again. To me, it is the least democratic Western nation out there. Quite convincingly so too. Is it really a democracy at all any more? I'm not so sure. That's why I never went for the jobs offered to me. No matter how much money they were (including a Green Card). Oh, and I don't really fancy working 60+ hours and go broke regarding health care.. My country's system is expensive enough as it is...
Ah, tight competition with UK.
@@frankkobold Yes, certainly these days.... Unfortunately ...
The uk litteraly has a rich people club (house of lords) where idiots who are not qualified for anything get parliment seats because they were born into it and there isnt even elections for them. Id say thats pretty un democratic no?
Eventually republicans will lose the popular vote for the presidency, the house and the senate and win all three if population trends continue
@@STEP107 Oh, it gets worse! The last bunch of people becoming lords donated 500k+ UKP to the Conservative party... For the past 10-15 years at least.. Even less democratic....
What a joke they should abolish all seats and allocate seats based on the percentage of voters you get
"A snake through Manhattan," when the majority of the weirdness is in Brooklyn.
Both parties can agree Colorado, Michigan and Virginia were the best in the country. We need to have every map look like those
No the VA map is a republican Gerrymander.
@@gusgrow9768 it represents the electorate, half republican and democrat with 1 competitive seat that leans democratic. Don’t see how thats a republican gerrymander.
@@Isoso1234It is a light red gerrymander. Because its is a Biden 10 states it should have 5 blue seats 4 reds seat and two competitive seats. In the process of making it the republican stonewalled it bc they knew if the time ran out a republican controlled supreme court would get to draw it. While not the worse map. The fact the system allows for the for it to get ripped away from an independent commission and put in the hands of hyper partisan judges is bad. It's not a model by any means. If it were PA this would be fair but it is not. Tho dems should be thanking there lucky stars it didn’t end up worse.
TN voted governor 60/40. Will be gerrymandered to 8/1.
Democratic states are more likely to have independent commissions.
We NEED multiwinner statewide elections. It would eliminate the effort of redrawing altogether.
Get pr, mich much simpler
That will never pass as people want local representation. Statewide elections in large states would favour those with lots of funds or people with lots of local recognition.
Multi-member districts would be a better compromise.
All things equal. It already favors people with lots of funds. With multiwinner districts you have new gerrymanders. Single districts: the state. Then everyone can only elect 1 in. Ranked choice / transferrable votes to vote in the winners.
I love this channel. Very nonpartisan and informative
I think they should just get rid of districts altogether. A state with 10 reps still gets to send 10 reps, but it's broken down along party lines. So if 50% of the people vote republican, 30% democrat, and 20% libertarian, then the state sends 5 GOP reps, 3 dems, and 2 libertarians (who are picked during the primary season).
Just get rid of congressional districts and use proportional representation 😉
just get rid of the House & each State gets 2 Senators who won't care about you until it's time to run for reelection.
@@AndrewRusherLDS... isn't that the case now? Like, why even bother to do anything when you win through gerrymandering anyways?
@@Chrissy717 gerrymandering exists because of the House. each State gets 2 Senators so you can get one party control or 50/50
I tried my hand at my own maps. The only way to make it "fair" is statewide Proportional Representation. Someone will always find fault with your map.
Very true. Canada has completely fair maps and the liberals have won twice in a row while getting fewer votes. Basically what people want is to gerrymander a proportional result into a FPTP system which would require time travel.
@@catmonarchist8920 My home state of Kentucky at least has a rule that requires minimal County fracturing so we don't get jaws of life districts like Maryland or Illinois.
Im still trying to figure out how to make sure the whole state is represented in a PR scheme. Thats the benefit of District Lines they at least forces you to cover the whole state.
@@codymurphy3493 Look into single transferable vote in that maintains fewer, larger districts so they still have to appeal to many places.
In Northern Ireland they have each FPTP house of commons constituency (like the US house) return 5 members under STV in their devolved (state) government so they only have to draw one set of maps which is quite elegant.
This is just the equivalent of when I tried to make a "custom" Monopoly board as a kid with about 90% of the properties labeled that I already own them at the start.
In the US there is no such thing as "non-partisan"
the same is true everywhere else too
@@AndrewRusherLDS no it's not and stop spreading that nonsense. The US deals with democracy problems only other FPTP countries deal with.
These systems just tend to flip insanely fast to only have two big parties deciding everything.
This is especially bad in the US. Stop saying this happening elsewhere. Stop.
@@Chrissy717 appointed, elected, or picked out of a hat the outcome is going to be partisan. the only non-partisan is a monarch with total power because they don't have to play politics
If we're going to talk about the voting rights act, we need to talk about New Mexico. All three new New Mexico maps are majority Hispanic.
But New Mexico is around 57% Hispanic, so all 3 districts would have at least a plurality of Hispanics.
@@thefifthhour45 well, then why do black people have to have more than one district in states like Alabama? Its hypocrisy.
I’m firmly in the opinion that if you have humans drawing the maps, you’ll eventually have corrupt humans (whether blatantly as in your New York example, or more insidiously). I think the way forward would be district by shortest line method - whereby an algorithm is created to sort equal amounts of population in areas determined by the shortest average circumference. Now while this is not perfect (can overinflate an urban centres voting power by merging with large swatches of rural land), I think it is a good place to start, and fundamentally is out of the control of any political party to influence, leading to a truly “fair” electoral district map.
What do I know though, I live in Canada 😂
As a Canadian, with elections and political boundaries run by arms length independent body, I find US politics baffling. The fact that there is resistance to the idea of independent body running elections even more confusing.
What is an "independent body"? The US is supposed to have one of those in the Supreme Court. How has that turned out? Who chooses the members of the body and what those members believe means there's no such thing as a true "independent body".
@@danielp763 We have a non-partisan agency called Elections Canada that reports directly to Parliament and not The Government of Canada. The agency follows the Canada Elections Act.
Making anything partisan free is probably impossible but you can minimize the influence greatly with such a system. Having a multiparty also helps.
@@mbogucki1 Your distinction between government and parliament is lost in US politics. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, parliament makes the laws and government goes about implementing and administering them. The equivalent bodies in the US, Congress and the executive administration run by the President, are both considered part of the "government" as far as US politics are concerned.
The point is that any "committee" or "independent body" put together by politicians and made up of people with political leanings is only as independent and non-partisan as all the actors involved are honest and forthright. How many honest and forthright political actors do you think there really are?
What if republicans managed to control the appointments to one of these "committees" and appointed all republicans? What if the "independent committee" then passes republican-biased policies? What if those policies are approved by Republican-controlled regulatory bodies and approved by Republican-controlled Courts? How "independent" and non-partisan do you think things will wind up?
This is the crux of conservative politics that others around the world and in our own country don't seem to understand. When you concentrate power in (mostly unelected) "committees" like this, all it takes is one bad actor or group of actors at one point in time to corrupt the system permanently.
Our district system certainly isn't perfect, since it's vulnerable to things like gerrymandering, but it's far safer in the long run. The federal government can't control its own elections. That's a really important check to maintain the balance of power. If one party goes too far, you can always vote for another party who'll draw new maps that are better. If one state goes too far, there are 49 other states to offset any excesses of another state.
1:58 - Ridings are in Canada and Yorkshire. In the U.S. they are called districts.
In merica voters don't elect their representatives. The representatives selcts its voters 🤣
America, please just use proportional representation already and there will be no more gerrymandering problem!!
Or like washington state you give it ti a bipartisan committee. do we still get gerrymandering? Yes. but it's on a much smaller scale.
And then the Republicans will never win a single election ever again. No way it will be reformed.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me true, America's system was designed to enable the minority to have a voice for better or worse
@@Aman123ace Still defeating the purpose of a democracy if you end up electing a government based on a minority.
Very rarely in a functioning democracy should the minority come into power but just because there's fewer of them does that mean their opinion matters less are they not people with valid wants and needs? Many of our constitutional provisions are so that people who are at a numerical disadvantage cannot be easily abused by the majority who at best will be self serving and negligent to the minority and at worst will be actively antagonistic to the minority. It doesn't always work out well and sometimes bad people get a louder voice than they should but I would rather have means that can enable those who are few in number to have voice even if it allows bad people as well as good ones. After all, without that policy and philosophy the senate would never have existed and the Civil rights movement would either die in silence or be pushed by violent force.
Ohio doesn’t have a new map yet. The Supreme Court keeps turning it down because it’s not bipartisan.
How about having an ordered list of candidates, then vote, then use the names proportionally to fill the seats, regardless of any map making?
Too much sense?
I haven't thought much of gerrymandering because my whole life has been lived in overwhelmingly one-party districts. The village I grew up in: solidly red. The city a hundred miles away where I now live: solidly blue. And the regional voting records over the past few decades reflect this. Legislators couldn't gerrymander my districts if they tried.
It would be nice to live in a competitive district, one ripe for gerrymandering, so that I can help control which of these two worthless parties represents me. Ain't happening though.
I'm in a similar situation. Australia doesn't have a problem with gerrymandering, but I'm still stuck in a safe seat for the National Party (part of the current governing right-wing coalition).
The "For The People Act" wouldn't change anything since the power to draw new map boundaries belongs to the 50 State Legislatures NOT the US Congress. The US Congress can pass laws to stop the State Legislatures from making racist map boundaries but they can't pass a law forcing the State Legislatures to have "independent" groups create the map boundaries.
The only legal ways to change how the US does its mapping is:
1) Amend the US Constitution.
2) The State Legislatures give up their right to draw the map boundaries to "independent" groups.
3) Amend the State Constitution of each State.
Can congress not ban them from drawing partisan maps? And if they do it get struck down and drawn by a court? If the SC says no? Pass a law that takes the power of the SC from reviewing the constitutionality of the law whilst requiring them to uphold the provisions of the law.
The constitution gives congress the power to set the jurisdiction of the court so they can strip them of it outside of original jurisdiction. Of course this requires the court to agree to this. In the past they have but rarely.
Tell me where in the Constitution it says that Congress cannot do this? Because, it can, it chooses not to for different reasons, but Congress could. Besides, this isn't the first time Congress has told states how to redraw Congressional districts, federal law in fact says that they must be compact and contiguous as well as have about the same amount of population.
Now you are right Congress cannot tell States how to draw their own State legislative districts, as long as they don't run a foul of the 15th Amendment, but Congress has all the power to decide on its own Congregational districts and federal elections in general.
@TLDRnewsUS Minor correction regarding Elbridge Gerry - his last name was pronounced "Gary", as in, "Gary the snail".
Great video!
If only there was some sort of a system where the numbers of REPRESENTATIVEs in office match the PROPORTION of the people who have cast their votes for them 🤔🤔🤔
That's a crazy idea! It just might work...
FPTP is terrible, and PR systems are good in many ways but they aren’t a panacea. They completely remove the concept of local representatives, which removes the direct carrot and stick to benefit your constituents, and are just a thing people LIKE to take advantage of. People like being able to schedule an appointment with THEIR local representative and tell them about THEIR concerns with how the new legislation directly effects their electorate, who have direct power over their future career. PR systems also require parties to be an officially acknowledged part of the government system, and even with open list systems, the incentives are aligned to uncompromising loyalty to the party, and its manifesto even if that part of the manifesto isn’t the reason their supporters voted for them and their supporters would be happy to compromise that part for gains elsewhere. FPTP is basically the worst possible local representation system (because it’s literally the first and most obvious one to be invented), but that doesn’t mean local representation systems as a whole are bad. STV make gerrymandering extremely difficult and doesn’t mathematically favor 2-party systems like FPTP, while still giving everyone local representatives. MMP does a first pass on the legislature that gives everyone local representative, while also correcting for the disproportionality of local representation after the fact through a more traditional PR seat assignments algorithm. What I’m saying is there are options and tradeoffs, and FPTP is particularly bad, but PR is SO different that it actually has a few ways in which people could legitimately PREFER FPTP to it, where better local representation systems like AV/IRV & STV and compromise systems like MMP are much easier sells for people familiar with FPTP while having NO DOWNSIDES for anyone who isn’t directly involved with one of the two major parties.
@@IONATVS Thats why where I live we have general elections for country-wide politics and local elections for district-wide politics. But I get it some people just can’t handle having to vote twice.
@@IONATVS there are many options, one that I think is workable is what Wales and Scotland do, everyone has 1 "local" representative and a few (4 in my case) "regional" representatives. At election you cast 2 votes, a local vote for the person and a regional vote for a party. Local vote is a simple FPTP, then the regional votes are redistributied to make it so that the regional representation matches that vote including both regional and local members.
There are ways to get in contact with them individually or with all regional representatives as well as the local one. Which is much better because it increases the chances of getting help and information from at least one of them.
For example say that you are on benefits and struggling cause they cut them, if you local representative was a Conservative you would just get the standard party line and that's it, but if 2 of the regional ones are Labour and Green they will get back to you and might be able to push your case. Or the other way if you've got a business that keeps having issues due to environmental laws, your local representative was Labour but there was 1 regional Conservative, they would be more likely to work with you on that and push your case.
@@KrisRogos I know what Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) is. I still prefer STV (each district elects ~5 seats, with an Instant-Runoff preferential voting system and to narrow the pool and redistribute excess votes for winners and all votes for losers until # of seats-1 have won outright and there’s only one person left to fill the last one-the system used in New Zealand), but MMP is a reasonable compromise between true PR and plurality systems.
That bit in the end was disingenuous as to why the GOP didn't vote for the "For the People Act". It wasn't only for the redistricting being monitored/controlled by the Federal government, but a whole slue of other federal law that would greatly change state elections.
If ya want a non partisan vote, stop putting so much pork in a single bill. Bring smaller bills that focus on more non partisan topics (like gerrymandering) to the table.
They still won’t support it as the gop controls more state legislatures (and also governorship)and have more to gain with gerrymandering
This is caused by the lobbying prevalent in US political landscape. It's coming to UK and EU too.
@@yangch03 yes and so does the democratic party... didn't you see the majority of the video where they showed who benefits from gerrymandering? Both parties do it and both benefit.
If it was the case voting on gerrymandering by itself, we likely would have seen a very different combination of results.
@@isaach.1135 it is the dem that are leading the anti gerrymandering movement, but it is impossible to do so if republicans are doing it, because by not gerrymandering, they are effectively handing control to the republicans. So they are in a mind set where “ they are doing it, so we cannot not do it”
There was one interesting defense of gerrymandering I heard was that it allows for minority representation. Apparently several gerrymandered districts are drawn in such a way that the black vote, latino vote, etc can be consolidated and given a representative from their community, whereas more cleanly drawn district lines may split them and make them minority voter bases in their respective communities. I can understand this to an extent, but even then the practice as a whole seems really indefensible to me. There's got to be a better way to get representation for marginalized communities than to prop up such an anti-democratic practice.
American democracy? What a joke.
The most easiest way to end gerrymandering is; proportional representation on state-basis - states acting as a single constituency - with a threshold of 3 to 5%.
Another step would be to increase Congressional seats to around 870. More seats would make gerrymandering much more difficult.
What about states with two seats
@@catmonarchist8920 You talking about the Senate or the House?
@@zarakkhan9625 house
@@catmonarchist8920 If a hypothetical House has around 870 seats proportionally represented on the basis of states acting as single multi-member constituency. States like Wyoming would have three or four seats. The potential problem is the threshold would ridiculously high, around 10 or 20%. To solve this is to assign more seats to all states equally and at the same time, distribute seats on the basis of population.
Give all states a minimum of two or three seats equally and at the same time, distribute seats proportionally on the basis of population.
If such a proposal was implemented, Wyoming would have two or three minimum seats and three or four seats on the basis of proportionality. As a result, Wyoming would have five or seven total seats, which may significantly reduce the threshold.
This solution, admittedly, would need more polishing.
@@zarakkhan9625 I'd just use STV and use instant runoff voting in the 1's and 2's and not have to deal with the disproportionality.
0.17% of 870 = 1.47 so Wyoming would have 1 or 2 by virtue of its population under your system and to make it work proportionally would require giving them several times the number of seats which is inherently problematic..
It's another time of the year. One need to set goals and take bold steps in achieving them. Remember success is not obtained overnight. You just have to stop procrastinating and try what you have always wanted, to improve your life and wellbeing Investments will take you closer to that your dreams.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this mate!
I believe that the secret to financial stability is having the right investment ideas to enable you earn more money, I don't know who agrees with me but either way I recommend either real estate or crypto and stocks
Wow I'm just shocked you mentioned and recommended Mr Theodore Shelton ,I thought people don't really know about his services. he s really awesome
I have heard a lot about investments with Mr Theodore Shelton and how good he is, please how safe are the profits?
I've also been trading with him, profits are secure and over a 100% return on investments
Standing in line for the 2018 midterms: "Hey this district looks like a unicorn!"
The name of the guy had a hard G (like Gift or the image format), yet still folks use soft G for the political process (like the image format).
A lot of comments are saying to implement proportional representation . but that would mean you won’t have a single representative to represent your district or constituent related issues . It does not let people have their own representative assigned to them , which is a huge drawback
Nice red state propoganda son
@@TonyDootjes What.....
@@TonyDootjes Dude not everything is black and white . There are pros and cons to every system . People like you who are very polarized are the reason why america is so divided
@@johnsamuel1999 Yeah does my name look American to you
I really and truly hope that we can wrestle control of all parts of elections from politicians and have it be as unbiased as humanly possible. I don't care your views, you deserve to have your voice heard and your vote be counted fairly.
There is no guarantee of things betting better, but I would rather that we try to make things better than give up and let them get much worse.
Why don’t the state supreme courts draw the maps...? They’re much less partisan than legislatures. Honestly, courts need to take more part in government.
It's a huge problem, it's politicians choosing their voters instead of the other way around. America's electoral system is extremely antiquated, just look at the electoral college and the fact that, along with the UK it's the only western democracy that uses a first past the post voting system.
From VA and the nonpartisan commission was short of its deadline but their map was pretty even handed. These are solid bets considering this stuff should be left to the states.
No it was not it was a blue state it should have had one more blue district
@@gusgrow9768 As someone who lives there, Virginia's a challenge to district proportionally because it typically votes blue, yes, but the democratic strongholds are crammed into the top right corner of the state, so the only way to make districts equal to the state's lean as a whole would be to crack places like the 8th district that are +50 democrat leaning into contorted and elaborate shapes. The fact that Democrats tend to cluster in cities makes it much harder to represent them fairly and also makes it easier to disenfranchise them (case in point: Utah).
@@patrickmcgann2673 Who cares if the shapes are Elaborate they should be fair.
@@patrickmcgann2673 agreed! It’s tricky, I actually really like the new 7th, it’s where I live and it honestly is probably the geographic area with most evenly divide political population so I’m down with it.
@@gusgrow9768 Care to elaborate?
Not trying to defend the practice of gerrymandering for the purpose of suppressing political expression, but there are some "examples" of gerrymandering that are thrown around on the internet like "lol look how bad this district is drawn" when in reality they're drawn like that to link up groups of similar socio-economic demographics that may not necessarily live in a strictly contiguous land area in order to actually give them *more* of a political voice by uniting their demographics rather than sweeping them into "more reasonable" districts in their areas which would take away their representation...
But why do they let parties redraw districts? What Is the idea behind It?
All the states need to move to non-partisan commissions. If the vote is 54% to 46% the party with 54% shouldn't end up with 80% of the seats. It's BS and is not representative democracy.