Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States

⁨2022⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Davriellelouna@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨youshouldknow@lemmy.world⁩

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f90c201d-b8ca-40c4-a45c-1b052f69d1c0.png

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Full Explaintaion

    source
    • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      “Explaintaion”

      That’s a wild one.

      source
      • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        my thumbs flippped the t and the a… get a life.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Illegality is slowly being erased in america

    source
  • deaf_fish@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Is there even a way to mathematically divide up land area into completely fair districts? I heard somewhere that it wasn’t possible.

    source
    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      bdistricting.com

      source
    • pupbiru@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      there are voting systems that take representation into account… generally you have your representatives that you vote for, and another number to “fill the gaps”… so you have the people who represent your area, and then others who the parties put forward based on their proportional vote… they don’t represent a district/area, but the party… so the idea is that if a minority party gets 10% of the vote, they should have 10% of the representation - districts be damned… philosophy is more important than land

      source
  • n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s also illegal in the united states.

    source
    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It isn’t actually, not in all cases. There is nothing in the constitution preventing it and the Supreme Court and state courts have said that there is no mechanism in place to either identify it objectively, nor to remedy it if found, with a few exceptions. The biggest exceptions are where it violates the Voting Rights Act or otherwise demonstrably discriminates on the basis of racial demographics, in which case it can be kicked back to the legislature with the directive to try to be less racist this time.

      source
      • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Don’t forget that if you say it’s because the minority group votes against you then it’s officially political and not racist. Thanks SCOTUS.

        source
    • Bosht@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This I didn’t know, wtf. So this whole bullshit has literally been illegal to begin with???

      source
      • n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        It was, though a few years ago SCOTUS decided it’s OK as long as you aren’t doing it because you are racist.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Our nation will continue circling the toilet until gerrymandering is outlawed.

    And with how many stupids there are here that are scared of change, even when presented with facts proving it’s better for them, the odds of things getting better are pretty slim.

    source
  • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    No no, it’s Russia you see.

    source
    • cabillaud@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Gerrymandering and throwing your opponents out the window are two different things, even if it leads to similar outcomes at first glance.

      source
      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        A Power Duopoly is better than a Power Monopoly, but not all that much better.

        Think Cartel vs Monopoly.

        source
      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        LOL you’ve really got brainbugs. Munch munch munch

        source
  • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    WE know. It’s the pithed Fox News and Joe Rogan fuckwit demographic that has no fucking clue.

    source
    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Eh, the democrats seem to be getting back on board with it too now. Most Americans at least have a vague concept of gerrymandering. They just like to ignore it when it benefits their side.

      source
      • misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        “How dare you punch me back? You’re choosing to be violent when it benefits your side!” -Bully who punched 1,000 times first

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’d love to see what the vote would look like if we broke the gerrymandering systems today. Democrats are just now talking about doing their own fuckery to counter republicans, but what if we just “didnt” have them, which side wins?

    source
  • cymbal_king@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This is a board game! There’s also a virtual version on Board Game Arena

    source
    • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I have this game and I love it, abstracts and lecturing people about obscure subjects are two of my favorite things

      source
  • geissi@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    So, “perfect representation” is when one side wins that does not represent 40% of the votes?

    source
    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      When there’s just two “teams”, yeah. What’s more fair than majority rule in that situation?

      source
      • geissi@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Maybe proportional representation instead of winner takes it all?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      When there is one seat, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiplw district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.

      source
      • geissi@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes

        So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
        Sounds more like that outcome is the “least bad” rather than “perfect”.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The limit (with infinite districts made of infinite people) is theoretically 1/4 support, in a 2 party system, with a choice made from separately decided districts. If you add another level of districts, it could be 1/8, another would be 1/16, and so on.

    In practice you can’t make a district with a actually 100% support of the opposing party, and you need to leave a little room for error in the districts you plan to win. Also there aren’t an infinite number of districts lol

    source
  • Bloomcole@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Non-surprisingly it exists in some form in anglo countries.
    UK and Canada

    source
    • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      In the UK we have the electoral boundary commission specifically to avoid this sort of thing. Do you have an example of it being a problem in the UK?

      source
      • Bloomcole@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        This is just from what I looked up (from 4 years ago):
        With both parties getting 38% to Tories get 12 more seats than Labour.
        www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?…

        Seen other comments they can also mess with other factors, avg inhabitants, etc…
        Anyway, really not familiar with this but at first glance you at least have that system and you all can decide if 12 seats is a problem to you or not. Not my problem

        source
  • datavoid@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Nice, repost of a classic repost from the reddit front page

    source
  • Ltann0607@endlesstalk.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Lol Voting is irrelevant Prepare for the country to be Texafornicated

    source
  • pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    yeah no, jerry foreman explained better

    source
  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    What if everybody just votes thier opinion on a set of issues. The cadadites have to declare thier opinion on the same set. When the voting is done, the percentages are calculated for all the issues. Then a computer program picks a list of cadidates such the they together match the distribution of the voters.

    source
    • iglou@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Three problems:

      • It makes voting more complex. Having citizens able to make their opinion heard is important, but it should be separate from voting, unless you want an even larger abstention.
      • The matching problem doesn’t necessarily have a solution. As in, it might be (and is actually likely) impossible to have a set of representatives that matches the percentages of each opinion.
      • Not all opinions can be expressed in a multiple choice question. Most topics are way too complex to be summarised in a few options. So, who picks the options?
      source
      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        1, it is actually less complex for the voter. Right now they don’t kniw much about who/what they are voting for because all the info they get is marketing. But a question about homelessness or crime they probably feel more confident in thier answer. Plus many people don’t vote because thier options are all liars. The reps in this case don’t have to be popular, so they don’t have to lie. 2 in very small states it might be tough, but an algorithm can find the closest match by simply trying all the combinations. For a computer that will be a very simple task. And it could even print them all out for anyone to validate. 3 this for sure is the hardest part. Probably some kind of public proposal and polling combo would be needed. Btw, at work we were told to use numbers instead of bullets because it makes referring to a point much easier.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Replace all politicans with AI first and then do everyone else

    source
  • DemandtheOxfordComma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    As soon as we get a Democrat president let’s just get rid of it forever.

    source
    • AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      They’ve had plenty of opportunities and haven’t done it.

      source
    • iceonfire1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Unfortunately whichever party is in power is incentivized to be in favor of biasing the process toward themselves, both parties choose to keep gerrymandering even though it’s obviously voter suppression.

      This is also why neither of them will support ranked choice/instant run-off voting.

      source
  • hddsx@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This should be a minimum three member mixed district resulting in 3 blue, 2 red

    source