Obama’s post-presidency political focus: Redistricting
41 replies, posted
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/17/obamas-post-presidency-political-focus-redistricting/[/url]
[quote]Hoping to regain lost ground in the states before elected officials there redraw congressional maps for the next decade, Democrats have launched a new group that will enlist the aid of President Obama as well as a slew of the party’s liberal allies.
The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which will be chaired by former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr., will focus on key legislative and gubernatorial races, voter initiatives and legal fights.
While former presidents periodically campaign for individual candidates after leaving office, Obama’s decision to back such a broad, organizing political effort after leaving the White House marks a rare, if not unprecedented, step in the modern era. While the initiative will not be the sole focus of the president’s future political activism, it provides a lens into how he will leverage his influence in the years to come.[/quote]
I hope we get districts based on actual geography and not political gain this time around.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;51218632]I hope we get districts based on actual geography and not political gain this time around.[/QUOTE]
This ties in with geography but the districts should follow where people with similar beliefs or cultures are shared. Geography plays a bigger role for the people in developing nations but it still has a [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03iwAY4KlIU]notable effect on people even in the US[/url].
Oh boy! Gerrymandering!
A great twist for the history books would Obama being appointed to the Supreme Court like Taft. Imagine the reaction from the right.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51218659]A great twist for the history books would Obama being appointed to the Supreme Court like Taft. Imagine the reaction from the right.[/QUOTE]
Can't imagine it would get past republicans in congress but I suppose that wouldn't matter if dems take it over this season.
I'd be more upset that the highest positions keep getting held by people in the same circle. I'm sick of Bush and Clinton dynasties running Washington.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51218664]Can't imagine it would get past republicans in congress but I suppose that wouldn't matter if dems take it over this season.
I'd be more upset that the highest positions keep getting held by people in the same circle. I'm sick of Bush and Clinton dynasties running Washington.[/QUOTE]
Well hoo boy I hope you're ready for grandson and granddaughters from the Bush dynasty to start making their way up the political ladder!
Soon enough little Chelsea Clinton will be running our nation! With a Bush as her VP probably!
There needs to be nonpartisan redistricting commissions in every state
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51218664]Can't imagine it would get past republicans in congress but I suppose that wouldn't matter if dems take it over this season.
I'd be more upset that the highest positions keep getting held by people in the same circle. I'm sick of Bush and Clinton dynasties running Washington.[/QUOTE]
Jeb is going to win in 2020 against Clinton.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51218669]Well hoo boy I hope you're ready for grandson and granddaughters from the Bush dynasty to start making their way up the political ladder!
Soon enough little Chelsea Clinton will be running our nation! With a Bush as her VP probably![/QUOTE]
It'll be Chelsea v Trump Jr. in 2040
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51218664]I'd be more upset that the highest positions keep getting held by people in the same circle. I'm sick of Bush and Clinton dynasties running Washington.[/QUOTE]
This is a valid concern. Political dynasticism needs to be done away with in this country. Careerism in general should be clamped down on to prevent old guards from becoming too well-entrenched as they are today. For what decent individuals are occasionally produced and maintained by it, it causes more problems for our country than it gives benefits.
Good interview about how the Republicans fucked House districts:
[url]http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerrymandering-its-moneyball-applied-to-politics[/url]
[QUOTE=Govna;51218913]This is a valid concern. Political dynasticism needs to be done away with in this country. Careerism in general should be clamped down on to prevent old guards from becoming too well-entrenched as they are today. For what decent individuals are occasionally produced and maintained by it, it causes more problems for our country than it gives benefits.[/QUOTE]
Poltical dynasticism also gave us the Roosevelts, who were arguably some of our best presidents. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the candidate is qualified.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51218656]This ties in with geography but the districts should follow where people with similar beliefs or cultures are shared. Geography plays a bigger role for the people in developing nations but it still has a [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03iwAY4KlIU]notable effect on people even in the US[/url].[/QUOTE]
Hi my name is Pennsylvania and we have a well established accents.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51218980]Poltical dynasticism also gave us the Roosevelts, who were arguably some of our best presidents. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the candidate is qualified.[/QUOTE]
Roosevelts were very distantly related that a dynasty of them were unlikely, they were a example of pure coincidence.
Also fun to point out that the families with political dynasties are the same ones who presidents end up cheating on their wives with multiple women, particularly the Democrats.
FDR, JFK, and Ol' Slick Willy
Trump would be the first Republican president to be a cheating slob afaik.
edit: forgetting that Eleanor was Teddy' niece, but regardless still coincidence.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51218659]A great twist for the history books would Obama being appointed to the Supreme Court like Taft. Imagine the reaction from the right.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grG5xI7EuFU[/media]
I just love how her face just fucking lights up
[QUOTE=smurfy;51218684]There needs to be nonpartisan redistricting commissions in every state[/QUOTE]
Independent redistricting efforts usually end up as independent as "independent" police review boards.
How qualified is President Obama to be a supreme court judge? I know he studied law but the justices are always judges really high up the circuit except for Kagan who was the dean of law at Harvard(?)
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51219670]How qualified is President Obama to be a supreme court judge? I know he studied law but the justices are always judges really high up the circuit except for Kagan who was the dean of law at Harvard(?)[/QUOTE]
Obama had a (rather brief) stint as a professor of constitutional law.
It's rather ironic when you consider his complete lack of respect for basic principles of justice.
Districts should just be decided by a publicly verifiable algorithm, that way it can't be fucked with in any way. Following geography is pretty arbitrary and following demographics is part of gerrymandering.
Would it be sound to just cut up states into little squares of all the same sizes and vote based on that? Seems like it would work even better out in the western half of the nation, if not the whole country.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
I assume there's a flaw with this plan somewhere, I just can't seem to think of it at the moment.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;51219835]Districts should just be decided by a publicly verifiable algorithm, that way it can't be fucked with in any way. Following geography is pretty arbitrary and following demographics is part of gerrymandering.[/QUOTE]
ok and how is the publicly verifiable algorithm accurate
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
gerrymandering is bad, but a perfectly even division isn't necessarily good
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51219990]Would it be sound to just cut up states into little squares of all the same sizes and vote based on that? Seems like it would work even better out in the western half of the nation, if not the whole country.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
I assume there's a flaw with this plan somewhere, I just can't seem to think of it at the moment.[/QUOTE]
it gives disproportionate power to sparsely populated areas
you want it to be proportional to the population, instead of stupid bullshit where Rhode Island has as much voting power as Texas or California
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51219990]Would it be sound to just cut up states into little squares of all the same sizes and vote based on that? Seems like it would work even better out in the western half of the nation, if not the whole country.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
I assume there's a flaw with this plan somewhere, I just can't seem to think of it at the moment.[/QUOTE]
You don't want equal geographic regions, you want equal population regions. The problem is that while geography is a constant, populations move around, meaning that over time you need to re-draw the boundaries to match the changes in population. Gerrymandering is people trying to section off those boundaries based not solely on population changes, but based on the [I]political leanings[/I] of those areas. This guarantees safe seats to the opposition (like D+18 in gerrymandered Dallas) while allowing you to dilute the rest of the opposition's voter pool by spreading the districts into geographic areas that strongly support you - both seats become safe, but you guarantee a higher proportion of those seats will be for you and not your opposition.
If you just drew equal squares all over the US - ignoring that it's effectively impossible since state borders aren't square - you would be completely unable to adjust based on population. A square over NYC, with millions and millions of people in it, would have the same effective vote power as a square in Wyoming where the population density is lower than 1 person per square mile.
Gerrymandering is one of the major reasons the extreme right has taken off in the past 30ish years. Republicans gerrymander certain districts to be incredibly safe seats, meaning that there is [i]absolutely zero[/i] threat that anyone from the left will be able to take it. But that doesn't mean that people from further right won't be able to. This means that the largest single threat in safe Republican districts comes from people [I]further right[/I], forcing Republicans in those safe districts to pander to groups further right to get their vote, reinforcing their more extreme political beliefs over and over and over and slowly adopting them into the party. Media perpetuates this, too, but gerrymandering is one major, major reason why the far-right/alt-right is so strong. It's sorta like Brexit, when the more moderate conservatives pandered to the far-right by guaranteeing an EU referendum, after which the referendum actually went through and forced the party to [i]actually[/i] adopt the further right position, which they initially used just as a tactic to save votes from UKIP. In that case, the further-right fringe voters managed to get the more moderate-right voters to shift further right. Same thing in the US in gerrymandered safe districts - pushes everything further right due to the undue influence of fringe voters instead of actually representing the beliefs of the majority of voters.
A fair voting system has to put [i]absolutely zero[/i] consideration into the political leanings of certain populations - algorithms would work best, since they fundamentally lack any intention to skew populations based on political leanings.
Why not just do the obvious thing and have proportional representation instead of unrepresentative "winner takes all" fuckery?
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51218980]Poltical dynasticism also gave us the Roosevelts, who were arguably some of our best presidents. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the candidate is qualified.[/QUOTE]
So a dictator is also good so long as they're a good dictator right?
[QUOTE=space1;51221363]So a dictator is also good so long as they're a good dictator right?[/QUOTE]
what's your point?
how is it even alike?
[QUOTE=daschnek;51219765]Obama had a (rather brief) stint as a professor of constitutional law.
It's rather ironic when you consider[B] his complete lack of respect for basic principles of justice.[/B][/QUOTE]
Citation warranted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51220890]it gives disproportionate power to sparsely populated areas
you want it to be proportional to the population, instead of stupid bullshit where Rhode Island has as much voting power as Texas or California[/QUOTE]
So Rhode Island should be told to get fucked and their opinion doesn't mean dick?
Regardless a municipality with a large population should represent itself and not the much smaller municipalities surrounding it as well.
Some people might not like this. I know there are quite a few districts in Louisiana that are specifically made to ensure that minorities have representation instead of being drowned out by everyone else.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.