What? Without districts and zones, people vote individually. Majority wins. Pretty basic. Keep everything else the same, voting zones, districts, whatever, where people go, but count it as a PERSON no part of a preconfigured cheated group.
Or just do mail in ballots with online tracking that it was received. Done. Majority wins. No electoral college or other bs.
With all the shady shit the US does that other countries don’t seems like majority in US was designed to fail against money.
This way it doesn’t matter that you live or moved to an opposing zone, you still vote and count towards your vote, not a small group.
The issue is less to do with votes inside a district, and more with the apportionment of the districts themselves.
For something like the presidential election a popular vote makes (more) sense.
Where gerrymandering comes in is regional representatives. I’m supposed to have a congressional representative who represents me and my neighbors.
‘Districting’ is the general practice of defining what constitutes a group of neighbors. When done properly you tend to get fairly compact districts that have people living in similar circumstances represented together. The people living near the lake get a representative, as do the people living in the city center, and the people living in the townhouses just at the edge of town do too. (A lot of rules around making sure that doesn’t get racist or awful, but that’s a different comment).
‘gerrymandering’ is the abuse of the districting process to benefit the politicians to the detriment of the voter. Cutting the districts in such a way that people who tend to vote the same way get spread around to either never or always get a majority share, depending on if you want them to win or not.
The above poster is wrong, and gerrymandering never had a valid usage. If 10% of the population has a political belief but they’re spread out amongst different districts, then they’re supposed to lose, not have the system bend over backwards to give them a special group.
Districting has value though, since it’s the way the system is supposed to allow people from smaller areas to have their voices heard without being drowned out by bigger areas, but fairly, such that each representative represents roughly the same number of people.
Other countries also do this type of districting, they just have other systems in place that keep it from being so flagrantly abused.
My mind was stuck on presidential and more nationwide elections, which popular vote makes sense. Local things should be more regional like you described. If you don’t live by the lake, you have pretty much zero say on what those that do live there say.
Then the people living in those 10 blocks have to live with whatever the rest voted for regardless of whether it works for them or not with no hope of things ever changing because they’re in the minority.
Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to be. Your regional representative is supposed to represent your region. If you’re the minority in the region then you don’t get to pick the representative.
We don’t have a proportional voting system. The system is not designed to ensure that elected party makeup matches voter preference distribution.
The minority voters in your scenario get their say in the Senate votes where everything is equal and the district is the entire state.
In any case, the scenario you’re describing is more representative of the cracking type of gerrymandering that’s the problem. A collection of voters in a region being split amongst multiple districts to dilute their votes is what gerrymandering is.
It appears you’re saying that in some circumstances it’s appropriate to layout voting districts based on the political affiliation of the people who would end up in the various districts, with the intent of ensuring some seats are won by a minority party that would otherwise not hold power.
I’m saying that districting should be based on shared interests, predominantly geographic in nature because that’s how our system is designed, but that it should definitely not factor in political affiliation.
This means that if a political group is spread out and in the minority, they will not be represented by someone sharing their party affiliation, and that’s as it should be in our system.
What? Without districts and zones, people vote individually. Majority wins. Pretty basic. Keep everything else the same, voting zones, districts, whatever, where people go, but count it as a PERSON no part of a preconfigured cheated group.
Or just do mail in ballots with online tracking that it was received. Done. Majority wins. No electoral college or other bs.
With all the shady shit the US does that other countries don’t seems like majority in US was designed to fail against money.
This way it doesn’t matter that you live or moved to an opposing zone, you still vote and count towards your vote, not a small group.
The issue is less to do with votes inside a district, and more with the apportionment of the districts themselves.
For something like the presidential election a popular vote makes (more) sense.
Where gerrymandering comes in is regional representatives. I’m supposed to have a congressional representative who represents me and my neighbors.
‘Districting’ is the general practice of defining what constitutes a group of neighbors. When done properly you tend to get fairly compact districts that have people living in similar circumstances represented together. The people living near the lake get a representative, as do the people living in the city center, and the people living in the townhouses just at the edge of town do too. (A lot of rules around making sure that doesn’t get racist or awful, but that’s a different comment). ‘gerrymandering’ is the abuse of the districting process to benefit the politicians to the detriment of the voter. Cutting the districts in such a way that people who tend to vote the same way get spread around to either never or always get a majority share, depending on if you want them to win or not.
The above poster is wrong, and gerrymandering never had a valid usage. If 10% of the population has a political belief but they’re spread out amongst different districts, then they’re supposed to lose, not have the system bend over backwards to give them a special group.
Districting has value though, since it’s the way the system is supposed to allow people from smaller areas to have their voices heard without being drowned out by bigger areas, but fairly, such that each representative represents roughly the same number of people.
Other countries also do this type of districting, they just have other systems in place that keep it from being so flagrantly abused.
My mind was stuck on presidential and more nationwide elections, which popular vote makes sense. Local things should be more regional like you described. If you don’t live by the lake, you have pretty much zero say on what those that do live there say.
Then the people living in those 10 blocks have to live with whatever the rest voted for regardless of whether it works for them or not with no hope of things ever changing because they’re in the minority.
Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to be. Your regional representative is supposed to represent your region. If you’re the minority in the region then you don’t get to pick the representative.
We don’t have a proportional voting system. The system is not designed to ensure that elected party makeup matches voter preference distribution.
The minority voters in your scenario get their say in the Senate votes where everything is equal and the district is the entire state.
In any case, the scenario you’re describing is more representative of the cracking type of gerrymandering that’s the problem. A collection of voters in a region being split amongst multiple districts to dilute their votes is what gerrymandering is.
Hmm, I think I might have completely fucked up my phrasing somewhere because you seem to be agreeing with me.
It appears you’re saying that in some circumstances it’s appropriate to layout voting districts based on the political affiliation of the people who would end up in the various districts, with the intent of ensuring some seats are won by a minority party that would otherwise not hold power.
I’m saying that districting should be based on shared interests, predominantly geographic in nature because that’s how our system is designed, but that it should definitely not factor in political affiliation.
This means that if a political group is spread out and in the minority, they will not be represented by someone sharing their party affiliation, and that’s as it should be in our system.
Well, in a perfect world, people wouldn’t vote specifically to hurt others.