The American Constitution

[Alan Klein]

I'm confused about the recent discussion regarding "gerrymandering". As a matter of interest, doesn't everyone think it's a bad thing that should be outlawed, prevented from happening, discouraged, something?

Or are people ok with it if their "side" wins? If so, how can one justify that?

Everyone thinks it's bad but everyone ignores it.  Power rules.  Elections have consequences.  When the Republicans win in a state, they get to draw election districts.  Then, when the Democrats win, they re-draw the lines to their benefit.  It's been going on for 200 years.  The US Supreme Court just decided that each state has to decide which lines are OK in their own state  The Federal COurts won;t referee any longer on it because it's hard for them to decide what's "fair".  Nor do they have the ability to referee 50 states.    So now, each the states have to decide if their own districts are drawn "fairly".  Remember, each state is sovereign with their own constitution, and court system to determine "fairness", if they want too.  There are a lot of things the Feds don;t have to be involved with that are left to the states to decide individually.   

[RSL]

That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.

So what's your solution, Omer?

[Rob C]

Motown rules.

It was the best little diversion rock 'n' roll ever took! Even I could dance to it - sorta, kinda.

And to think that most of the time it was the same small group of session men that made it work. Wow!

Rob

[JoeKitchen]

That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.

Okay, thanks for pointing out all of those truisms. 

However none of this is a critique of my original post on what a popular vote would look like and how the electoral college supports a two party system. 

[Alan Klein]

The solution employed in countries such as France is to vote over more than one round. All your hypothetical candidates stand in the first round; if none gets more than 50% of the vote, the most popular two stand against each other in the second round and the one with more votes (by definition, more than 50%) wins.

In a place the size of the USA, I suspect it would be a nightmare.

Jeremy

It would also extend the campaign season which is already unbearingly too long.  Also, can you imagine close votes.  Imagine what happened in Florida with the chads in 2000.  Can you imagine the fights on a national 50 state basis?  All of this is moot because the constitution will not be changed.  The smaller states will never vote to get rid of the electoral college which due to the 50% requirement, forces a two-party country.  "Also rans" are on ego trips. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Everyone thinks it's bad but everyone ignores it.  Power rules.  Elections have consequences.  When the Republicans win in a state, they get to draw election districts.  Then, when the Democrats win, they re-draw the lines to their benefit.  It's been going on for 200 years.  The US Supreme Court just decided that each state has to decide which lines are OK in their own state  The Federal COurts won;t referee any longer on it because it's hard for them to decide what's "fair".  Nor do they have the ability to referee 50 states.    So now, each the states have to decide if their own districts are drawn "fairly".  Remember, each state is sovereign with their own constitution, and court system to determine "fairness", if they want too.  There are a lot of things the Feds don;t have to be involved with that are left to the states to decide individually.   

One solution would be to remove the drawing of voting districts from the hands of politicians, all of whom are obviously biased. I'm sure that politicians would try to interfere in an arm's length elections service but it would be a second-order effect that you could minimize by transparency regulations along the lines of lobbiest regulations. Just shine a light on it, that usually disinfects things, but as you say, if everyone prefers the disease...

A previous comment mentioned that what's gerrymandered or not depends on your perspective but looking at this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a699863955a shows that it's kind of obvious sometimes, isn't it?

[Alan Klein]

That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.

A popular vote system will just create a parliamentary type system with many, many parties.  I'm not that familiar with them having never lived in one.  But I don't think parliamentary systems are a more "reasoned" government than what we have in the states.

[Alan Klein]

One solution would be to remove the drawing of voting districts from the hands of politicians, all of whom are obviously biased. I'm sure that politicians would try to interfere in an arm's length elections service but it would be a second-order effect that you could minimize by transparency regulations along the lines of lobbiest regulations. Just shine a light on it, that usually disinfects things, but as you say, if everyone prefers the disease...

A previous comment mentioned that what's gerrymandered or not depends on your perspective but looking at this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a699863955a shows that it's kind of obvious sometimes, isn't it?

Who will pick the people who draw the lines?   How will the picking process be any different with how political parties in power choose Supreme Court nominees?  No.  You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision. 

[Rob C]

Looking at the way politicians play the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking that all parties are entirely different, with no shared values, which is obviously not the case. In our own, smaller UK context, one almost never sees cross-party approval in debates: they constantly show themselves at loggerheads on everything. It's so silly and unrealistic, yet that's apparently how they have to play it to get the votes of the faithful.

They all have good and bad ideas; why on Earth can't they use the best of both?

Yes, two main parties are stronger than four or five weaker ones, but unless coalitions can be made to work, seems no way out of the tennis match - the singles one.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A popular vote system will just create a parliamentary type system with many, many parties.  I'm not that familiar with them having never lived in one.  But I don't think parliamentary systems are a more "reasoned" government than what we have in the states.

The Netherlands (a Kindom no less!) is a democracy, where the ultimate power resides with politicians who are elected by popular vote. It has been a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a unitary structure since 1848.

Seems to be functioning pretty well, by forming coalitions, and the people do not go through the streets guillotining those in power.

Cheers,
Bart

[OmerV]

Okay, thanks for pointing out all of those truisms. 

However none of this is a critique of my original post on what a popular vote would look like and how the electoral college supports a two party system.

I don’t think all politics is local. It’s an old term that no longer applies. Additionally, though I didn’t make it clear, I am suggesting a kind of parliamentary system. But even if we keep our current structure, a president backed by a legitimate third party could force a collaboration in Congress, and especially if it also to had a multiple party structure.

[Chris Kern]

Who will pick the people who draw the lines? . . . You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision.

Actually, the Court's opinion also pointed out that, in addition to current or contemplated action by individual states, the national Congress has several proposals before it to address "partisan gerrymandering."

As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. The first bill introduced in the 116th Congress would require States to create 15-member independent commissions to draw congressional districts and would establish certain redistricting criteria, including protec- tion for communities of interest, and ban partisan gerrymandering. H. R. 1, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §§2401, 2411 (2019).

Dozens of other bills have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting. In 2010, H. R. 6250 would have required States to follow standards of compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions in redistricting. It also would have prohibited the establishment of congressional districts “with the major purpose of diluting the voting strength of any person, or group, including any political party,” except when necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H. R. 6250, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (referred to committee).

Another example is the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which was introduced in 2005 and has been reintroduced in every Congress since. That bill would require every State to establish an independent commission to adopt redistricting plans. The bill also set forth criteria for the independent commissions to use, such as compactness, contiguity, and population equality. It would prohibit consideration of voting history, political party affiliation, or incumbent Representative’s residence. H.R. 2642, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (referred to subcommittee).

We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.
[Slip opinion, p. 32 ff.]

If the Democrats gain control of the Senate in the 2020 election and maintain control in the House, it's likely that some attempt to restrict the practice will clear Congress.  Of course if Trump is re-elected, it's not clear whether he would sign it.  (Although he has no particular ideological allegiance to the Republican Party and in a second term he might find it expedient to work with the Democrats if they had a majority in both congressional chambers.)

[JoeKitchen]

The Netherlands (a Kindom no less!) is a democracy, where the ultimate power resides with politicians who are elected by popular vote. It has been a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a unitary structure since 1848.

Seems to be functioning pretty well, by forming coalitions, and the people do not go through the streets guillotining those in power.

Cheers,
Bart

The Netherlands is also a very homogeneous country in a relatively small geography.  The USA is a very large country with quite mix of different cultures. 

Not sure if your system could work here, just pointing out a major difference that has effected all large empires in history who attempted to implement a strong central government. 

[JoeKitchen]

I don’t think all politics is local. It’s an old term that no longer applies. Additionally, though I didn’t make it clear, I am suggesting a kind of parliamentary system. But even if we keep our current structure, a president backed by a legitimate third party could force a collaboration in Congress, and especially if it also to had a multiple party structure.

I disagree with you saying all politics is local is no longer applicable.  Rest makes sense. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not sure if your system could work here, just pointing out a major difference that has effected all large empires in history who attempted to implement a strong central government.

Maybe you should try a Democracy instead ...?

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government...

Who's to say that the third party will be more reasoned, moderate, and centrist?

What needs to happen is to have four parties: 1. loony left, led by the person with learning difficulties, AOC, and Crazy Bernie,  2. centrist Democrats, Biden and Pelosi, 3. Trump party 4. Never-Trump Republicans.

[OmerV]

Who's to say that the third party will be more reasoned, moderate, and centrist?

What needs to happen is to have four parties: 1. loony left, led by the person with learning difficulties, AOC, and Crazy Bernie,  2. centrist Democrats, Biden and Pelosi, 3. Trump party 4. Never-Trump Republicans.

Yep.

Now, where’s my fiddle?

[Alan Klein]

Looking at the way politicians play the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking that all parties are entirely different, with no shared values, which is obviously not the case. In our own, smaller UK context, one almost never sees cross-party approval in debates: they constantly show themselves at loggerheads on everything. It's so silly and unrealistic, yet that's apparently how they have to play it to get the votes of the faithful.

They all have good and bad ideas; why on Earth can't they use the best of both?

Yes, two main parties are stronger than four or five weaker ones, but unless coalitions can be made to work, seems no way out of the tennis match - the singles one.

Exactly what our founders wanted.  A divided government.  The worse possible situation is when the President and the House and Senate are all run by the same party.  Then they force through stupid legislation that ticks off half the country like Obamacare under the Democrats and the new tax legislation under the Republicans.  When government is divided, little gets done.  That's great.  No new laws to take your freedoms away.  No more interference in your lives.  The more paralysis in Washington, the better it is.  Only people who like big government want a single political party to run things in Washington.  That way Washington can accrue more political power over our lives.  Better off when they can;t pass anything and leave the rest of us alone. 

[Alan Klein]

Actually, the Court's opinion also pointed out that, in addition to current or contemplated action by individual states, the national Congress has several proposals before it to address "partisan gerrymandering."

If the Democrats gain control of the Senate in the 2020 election and maintain control in the House, it's likely that some attempt to restrict the practice will clear Congress.  Of course if Trump is re-elected, it's not clear whether he would sign it.  (Although he has no particular ideological allegiance to the Republican Party and in a second term he might find it expedient to work with the Democrats if they had a majority in both congressional chambers.)

Maybe.  Then why hasn't Congress passed laws to do this in the last 200 years?  Remember, right now Republicans control more legislatures.  But if that flips and Democrats wind up controlling more state legislatures, they will then be opposed to changing the way district line drawing occurs because they will be in charge.  So they'll continue with Gerrymandering as always.  But your comment on what Roberts said is very interesting.  That's for posting it.  Of course, it's just another reason why the Federal courts  shouldn't get involved.

[Robert Roaldi]

Who will pick the people who draw the lines?   How will the picking process be any different with how political parties in power choose Supreme Court nominees?  No.  You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision.

Other countries do this.

Whatever bureau in the US analyzes weather can do so without political interference. I presume that they record what kind of cloud they're looking at without checking with their Senator first. The US Dept of Energy can manage its nuclear waste management mandate without political interference. The highway department can design and maintain highways and plow the snow without politicians getting too much involved, other than funding I mean. Politicians don't show up at the job site and tell the guys how to paint the lane markers, I hope.

You're making excuses, I feel. If the country wanted to create a bureau whose mandate was to manage the elections process free from political party involvement, you could do so. It's done all the time in many other places for decades now. Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can work is not very helpful. One could make a good case that democracy is being sabotaged by bizarre gerrymandering. The country can find all the excuses it wants to justify doing nothing about it, but to a lot of people, most importantly your own citizens, it is beginning to look like a non-functioning democracy. Combine this with reported voter suppression and things are not looking healthy. This undermines everything. Is this really what the "founding fathers" had in mind? I hope not.