Mike Blumenthal made a remarkably insightful statement this morning!!

[techs]

Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

 

[Rainsford]

Personally I think ANY kind of redistricting that takes ANY factors besides population into account should be totally and completely illegal, and I think the Supreme Court erred in not establishing that precedent. If anyone can offer me a reason why other factors should be taken into account, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Moonbeam]

We have known this for just about forever. The question is so what? We know we need a third party too. We know that speech isn't money. We know that corporations aren't people. Unless and until we figure out a way to come to some populist national consensus and force change things will stay as they are. I suggest that what we need to think about before what needs changing is how we can change anything.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: techs
Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

It's not really particularly insightful, the increase in partisanship in the US Congress is a well known and long documented feature that has been steadily accelerating since the 1970's. One of my professors in college is one of the, if not the single best known researcher on the increase in partisanship in the US and has written the most influential paper on the topic I'm aware of. EDIT: It's not this paper, it's another one.

His conclusion? Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with it. It's also not about just appealing to the base. The two parties have not only become far more polarized, but far more homogenized. In the past, particularly with the Southern Democrats, etc. there was a significant amount of overlap ideologically between the parties. This is no longer the case.

In this paper that Professor Poole wrote with some other people, they specifically address what you're talking about and raise a lot of good counter points. Like... the senate cannot be gerrymandered and yet the same increase in polarization has happened there. In addition, gerrymandering is designed to give the majority party the most seats in Congress, not the safest seats. If you have 20 seats, the perfect gerrymander is 19 seats where you win 51%-49% and 1 seat where you lose 99%-1. That doesn't make for safer seats for ideologues, at least not for the party doing the gerrymandering.

Anyways, I won't do any more summarizing of the paper, which I really suggest anyone interested in this topic reads, but a lot of current research says Blumenthal is wrong. Anyone interested in the polarization of America in general, I also have some other good papers to read.

 

[Thump553]

With two changes-(1) eliminate the seniority rules and (2) have a universal, impartial mathematical formula for setting house districts boundaries-the USA would make a quantum leap forward in have a democratic (small d) government, and I'd lay odds a far more representative one.

 

[smack Down]

Just increase the size of the house would fix alot of issues with earmarks, Gerrymandering, and the other BS in congress.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Just increase the size of the house would fix alot of issues with earmarks, Gerrymandering, and the other BS in congress.

Why would increasing the size of the House matter?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: techs
Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

It's not really particularly insightful, the increase in partisanship in the US Congress is a well known and long documented feature that has been steadily accelerating since the 1970's. One of my professors in college is one of the, if not the single best known researcher on the increase in partisanship in the US and has written the most influential paper on the topic I'm aware of. EDIT: It's not this paper, it's another one.

His conclusion? Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with it. It's also not about just appealing to the base. The two parties have not only become far more polarized, but far more homogenized. In the past, particularly with the Southern Democrats, etc. there was a significant amount of overlap ideologically between the parties. This is no longer the case.

In this paper that Professor Poole wrote with some other people, they specifically address what you're talking about and raise a lot of good counter points. Like... the senate cannot be gerrymandered and yet the same increase in polarization has happened there. In addition, gerrymandering is designed to give the majority party the most seats in Congress, not the safest seats. If you have 20 seats, the perfect gerrymander is 19 seats where you win 51%-49% and 1 seat where you lose 99%-1. That doesn't make for safer seats for ideologues, at least not for the party doing the gerrymandering.

Anyways, I won't do any more summarizing of the paper, which I really suggest anyone interested in this topic reads, but a lot of current research says Blumenthal is wrong. Anyone interested in the polarization of America in general, I also have some other good papers to read.

Partisanship is a function of seeing the world as us vs them, identification with some external as a substitute for real self respect, a question for companions to dance around the fire at night with spears and blustering song. The more we hate ourselves the greater the need to hate the other and the greater the fear of how dangerous the other is. Gerrymandering is the dividing up of the divided dividing them even more. It may not be a cause but it is an effect and a perpetuator.

Only two thing that returns the partisan hack to sanity about the guy down the street 1. an enemy invasion,hen the Martians land we will unite, or 2 the guy down the street moves next door and he lets your wife borrow two eggs and a cup of sugar.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: techs
Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

It's not really particularly insightful, the increase in partisanship in the US Congress is a well known and long documented feature that has been steadily accelerating since the 1970's. One of my professors in college is one of the, if not the single best known researcher on the increase in partisanship in the US and has written the most influential paper on the topic I'm aware of. EDIT: It's not this paper, it's another one.

His conclusion? Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with it. It's also not about just appealing to the base. The two parties have not only become far more polarized, but far more homogenized. In the past, particularly with the Southern Democrats, etc. there was a significant amount of overlap ideologically between the parties. This is no longer the case.

In this paper that Professor Poole wrote with some other people, they specifically address what you're talking about and raise a lot of good counter points. Like... the senate cannot be gerrymandered and yet the same increase in polarization has happened there. In addition, gerrymandering is designed to give the majority party the most seats in Congress, not the safest seats. If you have 20 seats, the perfect gerrymander is 19 seats where you win 51%-49% and 1 seat where you lose 99%-1. That doesn't make for safer seats for ideologues, at least not for the party doing the gerrymandering.

Anyways, I won't do any more summarizing of the paper, which I really suggest anyone interested in this topic reads, but a lot of current research says Blumenthal is wrong. Anyone interested in the polarization of America in general, I also have some other good papers to read.

Partisanship is a function of seeing the world as us vs them, identification with some external as a substitute for real self respect, a question for companions to dance around the fire at night with spears and blustering song. The more we hate ourselves the greater the need to hate the other and the greater the fear of how dangerous the other is. Gerrymandering is the dividing up of the divided dividing them even more. It may not be a cause but it is an effect and a perpetuator.

Only two thing that returns the partisan hack to sanity about the guy down the street 1. an enemy invasion,hen the Martians land we will unite, or 2 the guy down the street moves next door and he lets your wife borrow two eggs and a cup of sugar.

If it is a cause and a perpetuator why does the senate mirror the house in this partisanship? Can't gerrymander the senate.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: techs
Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

It's not really particularly insightful, the increase in partisanship in the US Congress is a well known and long documented feature that has been steadily accelerating since the 1970's. One of my professors in college is one of the, if not the single best known researcher on the increase in partisanship in the US and has written the most influential paper on the topic I'm aware of. EDIT: It's not this paper, it's another one.

His conclusion? Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with it. It's also not about just appealing to the base. The two parties have not only become far more polarized, but far more homogenized. In the past, particularly with the Southern Democrats, etc. there was a significant amount of overlap ideologically between the parties. This is no longer the case.

In this paper that Professor Poole wrote with some other people, they specifically address what you're talking about and raise a lot of good counter points. Like... the senate cannot be gerrymandered and yet the same increase in polarization has happened there. In addition, gerrymandering is designed to give the majority party the most seats in Congress, not the safest seats. If you have 20 seats, the perfect gerrymander is 19 seats where you win 51%-49% and 1 seat where you lose 99%-1. That doesn't make for safer seats for ideologues, at least not for the party doing the gerrymandering.

Anyways, I won't do any more summarizing of the paper, which I really suggest anyone interested in this topic reads, but a lot of current research says Blumenthal is wrong. Anyone interested in the polarization of America in general, I also have some other good papers to read.

Partisanship is a function of seeing the world as us vs them, identification with some external as a substitute for real self respect, a question for companions to dance around the fire at night with spears and blustering song. The more we hate ourselves the greater the need to hate the other and the greater the fear of how dangerous the other is. Gerrymandering is the dividing up of the divided dividing them even more. It may not be a cause but it is an effect and a perpetuator.

Only two thing that returns the partisan hack to sanity about the guy down the street 1. an enemy invasion,hen the Martians land we will unite, or 2 the guy down the street moves next door and he lets your wife borrow two eggs and a cup of sugar.

This is of course the fault of third parties. No?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: techs
Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

It's not really particularly insightful, the increase in partisanship in the US Congress is a well known and long documented feature that has been steadily accelerating since the 1970's. One of my professors in college is one of the, if not the single best known researcher on the increase in partisanship in the US and has written the most influential paper on the topic I'm aware of. EDIT: It's not this paper, it's another one.

His conclusion? Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with it. It's also not about just appealing to the base. The two parties have not only become far more polarized, but far more homogenized. In the past, particularly with the Southern Democrats, etc. there was a significant amount of overlap ideologically between the parties. This is no longer the case.

In this paper that Professor Poole wrote with some other people, they specifically address what you're talking about and raise a lot of good counter points. Like... the senate cannot be gerrymandered and yet the same increase in polarization has happened there. In addition, gerrymandering is designed to give the majority party the most seats in Congress, not the safest seats. If you have 20 seats, the perfect gerrymander is 19 seats where you win 51%-49% and 1 seat where you lose 99%-1. That doesn't make for safer seats for ideologues, at least not for the party doing the gerrymandering.

Anyways, I won't do any more summarizing of the paper, which I really suggest anyone interested in this topic reads, but a lot of current research says Blumenthal is wrong. Anyone interested in the polarization of America in general, I also have some other good papers to read.

Partisanship is a function of seeing the world as us vs them, identification with some external as a substitute for real self respect, a question for companions to dance around the fire at night with spears and blustering song. The more we hate ourselves the greater the need to hate the other and the greater the fear of how dangerous the other is. Gerrymandering is the dividing up of the divided dividing them even more. It may not be a cause but it is an effect and a perpetuator.

Only two thing that returns the partisan hack to sanity about the guy down the street 1. an enemy invasion,hen the Martians land we will unite, or 2 the guy down the street moves next door and he lets your wife borrow two eggs and a cup of sugar.

If it is a cause and a perpetuator why does the senate mirror the house in this partisanship? Can't gerrymander the senate.

Because madness is contagious.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: techs
Blumenthal was on Wolf Blitzer this morning, and here is what he said (paraphrased)

The redistricting of the House of Representives has made districts so uniformly one party that Representitives now vote almost 100 percent with their party and bi-partisanship has suffered.

IIRC when the redistricting flap in Texas was decided by the Supreme Court it was decided that you couldn't redistrict according to race BUT you could re-district according to political affiliation.
Which has turned loose many states to make as many secure seats as possible for each party. In order to stay in office a Representitive knows if he or she just votes their party line they are a lock to continue to win elections. This is the reason in the decline in bipartisanship.

I got to admit, Blumenthal really hit the nail on the head, imo.

It's not really particularly insightful, the increase in partisanship in the US Congress is a well known and long documented feature that has been steadily accelerating since the 1970's. One of my professors in college is one of the, if not the single best known researcher on the increase in partisanship in the US and has written the most influential paper on the topic I'm aware of. EDIT: It's not this paper, it's another one.

His conclusion? Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with it. It's also not about just appealing to the base. The two parties have not only become far more polarized, but far more homogenized. In the past, particularly with the Southern Democrats, etc. there was a significant amount of overlap ideologically between the parties. This is no longer the case.

In this paper that Professor Poole wrote with some other people, they specifically address what you're talking about and raise a lot of good counter points. Like... the senate cannot be gerrymandered and yet the same increase in polarization has happened there. In addition, gerrymandering is designed to give the majority party the most seats in Congress, not the safest seats. If you have 20 seats, the perfect gerrymander is 19 seats where you win 51%-49% and 1 seat where you lose 99%-1. That doesn't make for safer seats for ideologues, at least not for the party doing the gerrymandering.

Anyways, I won't do any more summarizing of the paper, which I really suggest anyone interested in this topic reads, but a lot of current research says Blumenthal is wrong. Anyone interested in the polarization of America in general, I also have some other good papers to read.

Partisanship is a function of seeing the world as us vs them, identification with some external as a substitute for real self respect, a question for companions to dance around the fire at night with spears and blustering song. The more we hate ourselves the greater the need to hate the other and the greater the fear of how dangerous the other is. Gerrymandering is the dividing up of the divided dividing them even more. It may not be a cause but it is an effect and a perpetuator.

Only two thing that returns the partisan hack to sanity about the guy down the street 1. an enemy invasion,hen the Martians land we will unite, or 2 the guy down the street moves next door and he lets your wife borrow two eggs and a cup of sugar.

This is of course the fault of third parties. No?

The third party thingi is not a phenomenon of us vs them, it's a matter of us vs both of them.