Lol Voting is irrelevant Prepare for the country to be Texafornicated
YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States
Submitted 1 day ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to youshouldknow@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f90c201d-b8ca-40c4-a45c-1b052f69d1c0.png
Comments
Ltann0607@endlesstalk.org 13 hours ago
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 hours ago
yeah no, jerry foreman explained better
Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Cracking and packing
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
No no, it’s Russia you see.
cabillaud@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Gerrymandering and throwing your opponents out the window are two different things, even if it leads to similar outcomes at first glance.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
A Power Duopoly is better than a Power Monopoly, but not all that much better.
Think Cartel vs Monopoly.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 21 hours ago
LOL you’ve really got brainbugs. Munch munch munch
Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
merc@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
“Explaintaion”
That’s a wild one.
Canconda@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
my thumbs flippped the t and the a… get a life.
geissi@feddit.org 20 hours ago
So, “perfect representation” is when one side wins that does not represent 40% of the votes?
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
When there’s just two “teams”, yeah. What’s more fair than majority rule in that situation?
geissi@feddit.org 18 hours ago
Maybe proportional representation instead of winner takes it all?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 19 hours 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.
geissi@feddit.org 18 hours 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”.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 day ago
WE know. It’s the pithed Fox News and Joe Rogan fuckwit demographic that has no fucking clue.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day 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.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day 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
AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 day 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
Stupidmanager@lemmy.world 1 day 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?
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Non-surprisingly it exists in some form in anglo countries.
UK and CanadaWhelks_chance@lemmy.world 1 day 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?
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 day 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
cymbal_king@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is a board game! There’s also a virtual version on Board Game Arena
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I have this game and I love it, abstracts and lecturing people about obscure subjects are two of my favorite things
datavoid@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Nice, repost of a classic repost from the reddit front page
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
iglou@programming.dev 1 day 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?
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 17 hours 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.
RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Replace all politicans with AI first and then do everyone else
DemandtheOxfordComma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
As soon as we get a Democrat president let’s just get rid of it forever.
AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
They’ve had plenty of opportunities and haven’t done it.
iceonfire1@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
hddsx@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
This should be a minimum three member mixed district resulting in 3 blue, 2 red
GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Hmmm, interesting choice of colors, considering which famously colored party is currently in the news for aggressively gerrymandering…
camelbeard@lemmy.world 1 day ago
cnn.com/…/gerrymandering-texas-republicans-analys…
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 day ago
and the current party using the 4th one the most.
ddplf@szmer.info 1 day ago
Which is it?