So there’s nothing wrong with Republican gerrymandering then. That’s a relief. We can close this thread.
See, ordinarily something like e.g. sending 2 million armed men across an ocean so they can kill hundreds of thousands of people they have never met before, including non-combatants and women and children, and so they can saturation-bomb cities, even firebomb them, would be considered ‘unethical’. But apparently there are times when one has to do it. So it’s not that complicated a thing to understand, really.
It’s not “unethical” for Democrats to gerrymander. For the same reason why it’s not “unethical” for Amazon to put local bookstores out of business. Destroying the competition is what corporations are meant to do, and it’s also what political parties are meant to do.
Our economic and political systems are explicitly designed to produce bitter adversaries. So if you think that preserving competition is in the interest of society when one side gains the upper hand, then you’ll have to find some external restraint. There is no reason to expect Amazon or the DNC to voluntarily restrain themselves.
Amazon and the DNC abide in structures that society created. In other words, it’s not a question of whether Amazon is ethical. The question is whether capitalism is ethical. Likewise, it’s not a question of whether the DNC is ethical. The question is whether the Constitution is ethical
Yes, it is. It is the intentional disenfranchisement of voters. Intentionally disenfranchising voters is unethical.
And back when Malathor was the only one saying it was a good idea, the rest of us all agreed on that fact.
Some means by which Amazon could do such a thing, would absolutely be considered unethical. Some would not be. But you are misapplying the analogy.
A better application would be comparing winning an election to putting the smaller company out of business. Winning an election is not necessarily unethical. But disenfranchising voters in order to win an election IS unethical. Just like some business practices are unethical.
It’s really weird how this suddenly became non obvious to some of you guys.
Agree with all this, and I’d add that there’s plenty of room for other improvements that would minimize the effects of all kinds of voter suppression (including gerrymandering). Ranked voting is my personal favorite, since it also fights against extremism, but there’s lots of others. We even enacted some here in MI recently: automatic voter registration at driver’s license registration, no-excuse absentee voting, same-day voter registration.
I also favor getting rid of single seat districts, making them 2-3 seat districts with ranked choice voting.
Because the flat truth of it is that even with ranked choice it is still possible to gerrymander. It solves some problems for sure, but not all. But there is always a disparity between votes and outcomes. Think dem voters in rural areas, or even gop in cities. Their votes are meaningless no matter how you draw a district. But multi seat districts could have even minority party voters have a voice.
But it is a pipe dream, for sure. And sadly the places that most need electoral reforms are unlikely to get them, and even when states get them (Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin) an empowered GOP just ignores them often.
And remember that 2018 was a wave year, with high dem turnout. Christ, that Wisconsin breakdown. An 8% electoral advantage yet just barely over 1/3 of the seats?
Tell us again how increasing turnout fixes that?
If so, then a political system that encourages parties to disenfranchised voters is unethical. But the parties themselves are simply behaving as we expect them to.
Is mass incarceration of young men over minor offenses like marijuana possession unethical? I think so. So is it unethical for a police officer to arrest someone for marijuana possession? No, that’s what they are expected to do.
Likewise, when political parties gerrymander it’s because we have made a system that explicitly rewards gerrymandering. A party that won’t gerrymander is like a cop who won’t arrest anyone. They will both soon be replaced.
So don’t be surprised when they do what we expect them to do. We asked for it, and we are the ones responsible for the outcome.
This is not logically true. Hell it’s not even a sensible statement on its face. A system is not ethical, actions are ethical.
Every competitive situation can reward unethical behavior, but that doesn’t make that behavior ethical somehow. If we are playing a game, and I cheat without getting caught, my behavior is being rewarded. But that doesn’t make my cheating ethical, just because it didn’t result in punishment. I don’t get to say, “well, this is ethical, and it’s just the game that is unethical because it makes me want to cheat.” Obviously.
You are trying to make some messed up redefinition of ethics to suggest that any act that leads to winning is inherently ethical.
That’s not how ethics work. That’s the absence of ethics.
Which was still less than 60%.
And?
Look at these vote totals. Go ahead, go seat by seat.
I count 5 seats, of 99, within 5%. Only one within 2%. That means that in a year with higher dem turnout and lower GOP. A year in which they had an 8% advantage. A year they won 36 of 99 seats?
That can be fixed by turnout?
They would need to, by my estimation, win by 28% in order to have HALF the seats.
So, no, for everyone wondering how fucked gerrymandering can be? That’s it. You can’t fix that by turnout. And with such a majority you can’t actually fix that legislatively, and the people who would need to do so have no incentive. And the Roberts court basically shrugged their shoulders on this.
It’s the problem at the national level too. The remedies for this require the cooperation of the people propagating it. I don’t see this changing. The Supreme court made this broken system an entrenched reality.
Maybe not, given the severity of the gerrymandering there. But there are other options that are currently being pursued.
and even that article notes that the Supreme Court ruling was important. And that even in areas where they have mobilized voters and county officials for that? Their local reps ignore and don’t support it.
They even had a measure legislatively that was pushed for and supported by the governor that the state house removed. I wish them luck, but doubt they can achieve their goals.
Well of course it was, it would have eliminated the need to do any of the other stuff.
But they are still doing the other stuff.
Cheating is against the rules, by definition. It’s not expected and it’s not rewarded, in fact it’s sanctioned.
Now, what if something is neither rewarded nor sanctioned, like lying in Diplomacy? Is it unethical? I don’t think so.
What if something is explicitly encouraged or required to win, like lying in Werewolf? That’s definitely not unethical. If you have a problem with players who lie in Werewolf then you don’t actually have a problem with the players. You have a problem with the game designer.
Well, our political system is like a game of Werewolf, except that instead of requiring lying it requires gerrymandering.
On some level, we are each left to define ethical behavior for ourselves. You do you, dude.
Yes, that’s kind of my point.
I think gerrymandering is bad. But if Democrats gerrymander, I don’t hold them responsible. The people responsible are the people who forced them do to it, which is ultimately you and me
No dude, you’re the one saying it’s ok.
Just you.
Not just me. Lots of people here have said they won’t hold Democrats responsible if they start gerrymandering.
Another analogy: I don’t want a war with Iran. I don’t think any Iranian deserves death. But if American soldiers end up killing Iranians, I’m not holding the soldiers responsible.
Sure, there are a lot of hypocrites here, apparently.
But I meant not me.
Oh, i gotcha.
The Democrats are being ORDERED to disenfranchise voters.
Well that makes total sense then. Carry on.
As i said, we all define our own code of ethics. Trump thinks he’s ethical.
A little trip down memory lane.
And…
Those threads are two years old, but it’s interesting to see how folks acted when presented with that view from the other side of the aisle.