Well, DUH! Federal judges find Texas gerrymandered maps on racial lines

[fskimospy]

Why do you think I would oppose that plan? Hell, I'd not only welcome it but would scale it to minimize local, parochial concerns to the greatest extent possible. I'd one-up your proposal and apportion the seats at a national level rather than state. The mere fact that your representative's biggest concern is some hyperlocal canal cleanup is exactly what's wrong with our government now. Every representative should run on a platform broad enough to gain support from a wide range of constituents including those 250 miles away just as much as the one 250 feet away. Keep "districts" as a bookkeeping function if you want (to make maintaining voter rolls easier, etc) but make all representatives "at large" to the biggest extent possible. Maybe then your Rep will give a shit about something bigger than a canal cleanup, and some GOP rep in Texas or wherever will give a shit about something other than same sex marriage in another state that isn't even theirs. The current system not only encourages extremely fringe political positions get elected but also protects them from effective challenge from more moderate and mainstream politicians who would more accurately reflect the will of the average voter. If that means we get a "Democratic" government then so be it but at least it will be one more reflective of the will of the voters than under the current system where half the country wants to secede every four years based on the outcome of the POTUS race.

I have misjudged you then, I'm happy to hear that! I sincerely hope we change to proportional representation for the legislature one day, although I sincerely doubt we will. It will lead to a government that is quite a bit more liberal than the one we have though, which may not be so much to your liking.

 

[glenn1]

I have misjudged you then, I'm happy to hear that! I sincerely hope we change to proportional representation for the legislature one day, although I sincerely doubt we will. It will lead to a government that is quite a bit more liberal than the one we have though, which may not be so much to your liking.

Liberal or conservative matters less than being about the maximum good of all rather than voting for a zero-sum game position of "vote for me so I can bring home the most taxpayer money to my district!" Maybe once the entire country was "my district" then people could start looking beyond their own narrow self-interest of hyperlocal concerns. The current system is how we get the "bridge to nowhere" and such and your canal project falls into this. It's also why our infrastructure sucks, because every voter wants theirs built and for some sucker in another district to pay for it so you have a prisoners dilemma situation where we're all worse off. The very idea that "there's more of us so we get to utterly impose our will on you" is another big problem that this would help alleviate in some part.

 

[Jhhnn]

If Jhhnn had more in common with intelligent people, why are Jhhnn's posts always concentrated around stupidity?

Personal attack is the last refuge of the argumentatively challenged.

There's a reason that 'burbs are often called bedroom communities...Maybe you can guess what it is.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

@glenn1 @fskimospy Glad we're all in agreement here that the current system of drawing districts is inherently bad. I was kind of hoping taj would actually give me a reply, but I'm clearly an optimist.

I agree with both of you that removing the system as it is today is the best way to move forward, but the GOP will fight it tooth and nail. I wish I had the study on hand at work, but there was a study done with an independent computer based redistricting tool and they found the GOP would lose up to 23 seats overall nationwide if the gerrymandered districts got redrawn to properly reflect the interests and voting habits of the population groups in question.

The real conundrum is what hope do we have of convincing our representatives to agree to sign away their ability to have a monopoly on elections? I have no doubt the Republicans would fight this vehemently, and their ardent rural supporters would no doubt view this as an attack against the little guy by big city urbanites. The truth is, as was mentioned earlier, suburbanites don't live in the city for a reason, they wish to live a different lifestyle than those within the metro. This is even more apparent for those further outside the city who may like to only have to go into city limits once every couple of weeks for things they can't get close by. These people would likely feel their level of importance with regard to policy would be greatly diminished as the emphasis would shift to the more densely populated regions first.

Here in Texas I would use the areas slightly northwest of San Antonio up I10 (Fair Oaks Ranch and Boerne) Fair Oaks is about 15 minutes outside the city and Boerne is about 30 minutes away. I used to coach club soccer up in Boerne while I was in college and the voter profile of those areas is almost night and day to San Antonio. Those people took their money and ran out of the city and have absolutely no interest in giving a dime of it to any type of plan that involves expansion or improvements inside the city.

So the question I have is what kind of protections would be necessary to ensure the needs of the "little guys" wouldn't get swept under the rug as politicians focused more on larger urban areas in the new model? How do we get them to get on board with the notion of a more progressive form of representation without making them feel threatened?

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't understand how in modern times and methods of communication we need districts at all. Most people don't know who their congressional rep is when they vote for him and that rep often doesn't have the foggiest idea what goes on in that district because they live and operate out of Washington. Usually the tie to that region is something highly remote (ie having an unlived in house for a few months just enough to qualify for the application)

I'm not calling for an end of voting for representation but rather why the choices need to be restricted by district. It seems a really asinine idea to think that the person who best represents you in Washington by default is from your small town/region.

 

[glenn1]

Personal attack is the last refuge of the argumentatively challenged.

There's a reason that 'burbs are often called bedroom communities...Maybe you can guess what it is.

What you said wasn't even an argument, it was a trite definitional rhetorical question "why are the suburbs always concentrated around urban cores?" It's no more an "argument" than "then why is water wet" and added nothing whatsoever to the dialogue. And you're continuing on this post, somehow implying that relative geographic proximity somehow makes suburbanites more aligned to urbanites than rural dwellers when that's clearly not the case as shown in their votes. You can call inner ring 'suburbs' like Alexandria, VA outside DC "bedroom communities" all you want but places where the population density is in the high four or even five figures will not vote like more traditionally considered suburbs in the rest of America. Here's another view which shows the suburban/urban divide. Inside city limits and high population density 1st ring suburbs blue, most everything else red including the more traditional 'suburbs.'

 

[zinfamous]

If suburbanites have more in common with rural America, why are the suburbs always concentrated around urban cores?

because the suburb dwellers pay for their big houses, fancy gated communities, and fake neon lawns by commuting to their jobs at the grain silo in the nearby farm, don't you know?

 

[zinfamous]

What you said wasn't even an argument, it was a trite definitional rhetorical question "why are the suburbs always concentrated around urban cores?" It's no more an "argument" than "then why is water wet" and added nothing whatsoever to the dialogue. And you're continuing on this post, somehow implying that relative geographic proximity somehow makes suburbanites more aligned to urbanites than rural dwellers when that's clearly not the case as shown in their votes. You can call inner ring 'suburbs' like Alexandria, VA outside DC "bedroom communities" all you want but places where the population density is in the high four or even five figures will not vote like more traditionally considered suburbs in the rest of America. Here's another view which shows the suburban/urban divide. Inside city limits and high population density 1st ring suburbs blue, most everything else red including the more traditional 'suburbs.'

It's weird that you think the suburbanites' interests do not align, at all, with the health of the cities that they completely depend on for their very livelihoods. You might argue that they have been gaslighted into voting against their interests, no? Hey, I'm going to move out of the city to a place where it is horribly inconvenient to live, but it's away from all the smelly city folk that don't think like me! Man...I sure hope nothing happens to that city though...not that I need it--I'm "country!" but man...it would sure suck for the infrastructure to collapse here, because I'm sure as shit not moving to the real sticks where there aren't jobs to support my golf club collection!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

https://www.niche.com/places-to-liv...r-families/m/san-francisco-metro-area/?page=2
#37 Berkeley on the suburb list

 

[zinfamous]

https://www.niche.com/places-to-liv...r-families/m/san-francisco-metro-area/?page=2
#37 Berkeley on the suburb list

I lived there for 8 years. I wouldn't really call it a suburb, in the traditional way you think about a suburb, but nearly all of the Bay Area that isn't SF or San Jose are commuter areas for the entire region.

Not sure what you are posting--indignation that Berkeley is considered a suburb in this list, or what? The population is ~85k, iirc. Many do commute, but much of that population isn't year-round as they are students, and many residents work at the university or in Emeryville or Oakland. Now, if you climb up into west Berkeley, that is where you will find your enclave of cloistered SV Titans, CEOs, and their familial hanger-ons.

 

[brycejones]

https://www.niche.com/places-to-liv...r-families/m/san-francisco-metro-area/?page=2
#37 Berkeley on the suburb list

Do you have a point?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's weird that you think the suburbanites' interests do not align, at all, with the health of the cities that they completely depend on for their very livelihoods. You might argue that they have been gaslighted into voting against their interests, no? Hey, I'm going to move out of the city to a place where it is horribly inconvenient to live, but it's away from all the smelly city folk that don't think like me! Man...I sure hope nothing happens to that city though...not that I need it--I'm "country!" but man...it would sure suck for the infrastructure to collapse here, because I'm sure as shit not moving to the real sticks where there aren't jobs to support my golf club collection!

Pretty much. There's a huge gap between conservative suburbanites' perceptions & reality. Burbs are merely extensions of core cities whether they like it or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty much. There's a huge gap between conservative suburbanites' perceptions & reality. Burbs are merely extensions of core cities whether they like it or not.

It reminds me of the red state/blue state divide. More conservative areas hate the regulations of more liberal ones but are economically dependent on them. They really, REALLY hate to admit this.

 

[Jhhnn]

It reminds me of the red state/blue state divide. More conservative areas hate the regulations of more liberal ones but are economically dependent on them. They really, REALLY hate to admit this.

As Americans, we all depend on each other in ways we never even consider. That's why the Us vs Them divisiveness of right wing rhetoric is so damaging.

 

[brycejones]

As Americans, we all depend on each other in ways we never even consider. That's why the Us vs Them divisiveness of right wing rhetoric is so damaging.

Its because at its core modern conservatism sees the world as a giant zero sum game.

 

[MrPickins]

Burbs are merely extensions of core cities whether they like it or not.

Around here (Austin, TX) the suburbs are mostly made up of people that want to live in the city but can't afford to....

 

[Jhhnn]

Around here (Austin, TX) the suburbs are mostly made up of people that want to live in the city but can't afford to....

That's true of Denver, as well. Rents are insane. All the disused nooks & crannies of the City are being razed & filled with apartment buildings, particularly near downtown, light rail stations & major bus lines. Peple pay $500K for a perfectly decent house in a desirable neighborhood like SE Denver & scrape it off to build a McMansion. Working people who've lived in Denver proper all their lives are being pushed out into the Burbs where it's cheaper.

 

[Atreus21]

I have misjudged you then, I'm happy to hear that! I sincerely hope we change to proportional representation for the legislature one day, although I sincerely doubt we will. It will lead to a government that is quite a bit more liberal than the one we have though, which may not be so much to your liking.

Speaking for myself, and whether it helps or hinders conservatism, I'd like to repeal the 17th amendment.

 

[Atreus21]

Its because at its core modern conservatism sees the world as a giant zero sum game.

You know what's funny? Conservatives say the same exact thing about progressives, at least regarding progressive views on economics.

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking for myself, and whether it helps or hinders conservatism, I'd like to repeal the 17th amendment.

Conservatives generally favor repealing the 17th amendment as once the population was allowed to choose their senators they started choosing substantially more liberal ones on the whole. The average citizen tends to be more liberal than the rich people who generally end up being elected officials so this makes sense.

 

[Atreus21]

Conservatives generally favor repealing the 17th amendment as once the population was allowed to choose their senators they started choosing substantially more liberal ones on the whole. The average citizen tends to be more liberal than the rich people who generally end up being elected officials so this makes sense.

Then why did they not elect more liberal state legislators?

 

[fskimospy]

Then why did they not elect more liberal state legislators?

State legislatures as a whole have long been somewhat conservatively biased due to greater geographic concentration of liberals. In addition, there's a fundamental bias towards wealthier people running for office as they have the resources necessary. Just look at the median wealth of a member of congress vs. the general public.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then why did they not elect more liberal state legislators?

Because the great Repub gerrymander of 2010 affected that too.