(12-09-2022 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the end, yes, since we have a first past the post system.

But, from my perspective, it does count if there is an honest system in place that doesn’t intentionally place a person into a specific box because of who they are likely to vote for. Once you start packing and cracking based on the likelihood of voting for a specific candidate or party, the impact of one’s vote inherently diminishes (in my opinion).

Back when Texas was a Democrat state, I often felt like my vote didn't count. If I were to move to Queens or Chicago or San Fran, I would feel that way again. Might as well vote for Mighty Mouse. After all, like most politicians, he is here to save the day.

Mighty Mouse

Gerrymandering is a system used by either party whenever they can. It is a terrible system, but I know of no better alternative. Apparently nobody else can either.

No one can think of a better alternative? I reject that for a multitude of reasons - mainly that there are other forms of government, there are other forms of vote counting (like ranked choice), and there are other forms of developing voting precincts that aren’t done by obvious partisans.

I think that, in order for a democracy to function, people must feel like the system for electing officials to represent them reflects the will of the people - that it does not excessively favor a specific group over another.

I think your example of living as a red person in a sea of blue, or vice versa, is a different situation all together. But that issue you bring up is one reason I don’t like first past the post voting.

We both support ranked choice voting, but I don't see that it has any relation to gerrymandering, positive or negative.

Sure, there are other forms of government - but so what? the only ones I know of without gerrymandering are totalitarian states.

So we come to the "other forms of developing voting precincts that aren’t done by obvious partisans". Such as ???

I explained the relation to being against gerrymandering - they are both processes meant to more accurately reflect the choice of the voters.

The only countries without gerrymandering you know are totalitarian states? I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you mean the only countries you know who can avoid gerrymandering are totalitarian states? And let's be clear about what gerrymandering is - it is the modification of electoral boundaries with the intent to manipulate outcomes to give an advantage to a certain group.

I think there are countries who are working to avoid gerrymandering occurring, or at least blunt its impacts. I know Germany uses a type of proportional voting system that accounts for the party being voted for, and not just the candidate.

That all said, not sure that I follow the train of thought here. Because gerrymandering might happen we should throw up our arms and let it? There are no possible solutions out there to blunt its impacts?

The only countries I know of that have no gerrymandering are the ones which do not have Democratic elections - NKorea, Cuba, China, etc. In every country which holds elections between two or more parties, parties with power will attempt to add to that power by gerrymandering and other means.