American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Corrian]

That said, every state, if nobody actually passes the god damn voting rights bill, should work towards having independent redistricting commissions. They've passed in every state so far.

And Republicans on the committee in Virginia walked out throwing the maps to the state Supreme Court to draw.

That doesn't even feel that independent if parties have any involvement in them in the first place.

[Kowani]

That said, every state, if nobody actually passes the god damn voting rights bill, should work towards having independent redistricting commissions. They've passed in every state so far.

This is the time where I mention that independent commissions don't actually reduce gerrymandering on average

[Corrian]

That said, every state, if nobody actually passes the god damn voting rights bill, should work towards having independent redistricting commissions. They've passed in every state so far.

This is the time where I mention that independent commissions don't actually reduce gerrymandering on average

Pain

[Zurkerx]

It may be naive but I actually think Democrats will (barely) manage to hold onto the Senate but likely lose the House.

Either way, I suspect on election day 2022 we'll spend all day with bated breath watching the narrow Senate votes as they come in. Because control is basically down to a bunch of swing state senate races.

I agree, especially with the voting suppression tactics employed by the GOP although what I'll be paying attention to more is this: State Level Elections. We have some Governor Seats, as well as Secretary of States that oversee elections up for election. Should Trump Hardliners win, they will most likely reject the outcome of future elections not viewed favorably. That should be more worrying.

I will say this: if Trump Hardliners are the Senate nominees to challenge their Democratic Counterparts (barring that said counterpart isn't a candidate with skeletons in his closet like Cunningham), then those Senate Democrats should win and hold onto the Senate. If not, oh boy, Biden and Democrats are in for a rough stretch.

Don't worry, Americans just LOVE flip flopping back and forth as if that'll accomplish something. Because obviously the party who did nothing for the pandemic is the good one to put into power next, that'll fix everything. Oh, when it doesn't again? Welp, time to flip back to the other party who didn't actually pass anything. So on and so forth forever.

I don't think it's flip flop voters. Most Republicans have a cult of personality around Trump and his lackeys and will turn out massively next election if they can put them back into power. Biden voters dissatisfied with Biden will simply be less inclined to vote, either wanting someone else or losing faith in electoralism. That naturally would swing the election in favor of Trump and the Republicans.

Since we only have two parties, much of the country is unheard no matter what, and you cannot pin your hopes up on them holding their nose and still voting Biden.

The Democratic Party seems to have a voter turnout problem when it comes to Democrats not performing well, especially among young Americans who are disenfranchise with our political system and feel they aren't being representative. The general consensus is this: Democrats need to love their candidates; Republicans fall in line. This may not be true all the time but the fact is, Democrats, especially when they're not happy how their party is running, tend to sit out.

[Deblar]

That said, every state, if nobody actually passes the god damn voting rights bill, should work towards having independent redistricting commissions. They've passed in every state so far.

This is the time where I mention that independent commissions don't actually reduce gerrymandering on average

Wait, what?

Fuuuuuuuuu-

[Caleonia]

It may be naive but I actually think Democrats will (barely) manage to hold onto the Senate but likely lose the House.

Either way, I suspect on election day 2022 we'll spend all day with bated breath watching the narrow Senate votes as they come in. Because control is basically down to a bunch of swing state senate races.

I agree, especially with the voting suppression tactics employed by the GOP although what I'll be paying attention to more is this: State Level Elections. We have some Governor Seats, as well as Secretary of States that oversee elections up for election. Should Trump Hardliners win, they will most likely reject the outcome of future elections not viewed favorably. That should be more worrying.

I will say this: if Trump Hardliners are the Senate nominees to challenge their Democratic Counterparts (barring that said counterpart isn't a candidate with skeletons in his closet like Cunningham), then those Senate Democrats should win and hold onto the Senate. If not, oh boy, Biden and Democrats are in for a rough stretch.

I don't think it's flip flop voters. Most Republicans have a cult of personality around Trump and his lackeys and will turn out massively next election if they can put them back into power. Biden voters dissatisfied with Biden will simply be less inclined to vote, either wanting someone else or losing faith in electoralism. That naturally would swing the election in favor of Trump and the Republicans.

Since we only have two parties, much of the country is unheard no matter what, and you cannot pin your hopes up on them holding their nose and still voting Biden.

The Democratic Party seems to have a voter turnout problem when it comes to Democrats not performing well, especially among young Americans who are disenfranchise with our political system and feel they aren't being representative. The general consensus is this: Democrats need to love their candidates; Republicans fall in line. This may not be true all the time but the fact is, Democrats, especially when they're not happy how their party is running, tend to sit out.

and at some point I feel like when the republicans take over again they’re going to end up turning this country into an autocracy somehow…

[Kowani]

Montana Democrats file legal challenge against new law that bans voter registration and other political activity from taking place inside dining halls, dorms, and athletic facilities, at public universities

[Genivaria]

Montana Democrats file legal challenge against new law that bans voter registration and other political activity from taking place inside dining halls, dorms, and athletic facilities, at public universities

Whyyyyyyyy!?
EDIT: I misread this and thought that the Dems were behind the law.
Republicans are much less surprising.

[San Lumen]

Montana Democrats file legal challenge against new law that bans voter registration and other political activity from taking place inside dining halls, dorms, and athletic facilities, at public universities

Republicans should just come out and say we don't believe in Democracy and only want certain people to be able to vote.

[San Lumen]

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politic ... l/3318534/

New York Governor Kathy Hochul currently has a 49 percent approval rating with 20 percent unsure.

In a three-way primary with Attorney General Letitia James and NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, Hochul would win easily, at 44% to 28% for James and 15% for Williams.

But in a four-way race with James, Williams and Cuomo, Hochul would still dominate, at 36%, versus 24% for James, 19% for Cuomo and 9% for Williams.

Cuomo's teams insists he has no intention of running again. 77 Percent of voters don't want him too.

[Zurkerx]

and at some point I feel like when the republicans take over again they’re going to end up turning this country into an autocracy somehow…

You're not wrong: we call that Authoritarianism and the Republican Party has turned into something eerily similar to the likes of Turkey’s AKP, Poland’s PiS, and Hungary’s Fidesz. This is important to note though:

Over the past decade and a half, Republicans have shown disdain for procedural fairness and a willingness to put the pursuit of power over democratic principles. They have implemented measures that make it harder for racial minorities to vote, render votes from Democratic-leaning constituencies irrelevant, and relentlessly blocked Democratic efforts to conduct normal functions of government.

According to Jennifer McCoy, a political scientist at Georgia State University, these measures follow common patterns seen among populist authoritarians who initially win power by electoral means. They tend to pass changes to the electoral system aimed at ensuring “one party dominates government” while also working to marginalize or control “accountability institutions” like the judiciary or oversight watchdogs.

“Many of these leaders are able to do so when they first win a clear majority and then begin to change rules or the constitution to further entrench their advantage and get to supermajorities,” McCoy tells me.


For Republicans, the process of moving toward anti-democracy has taken decades rather than a single election. There was never a single unified GOP plan to lock out Democrats, akin to the way that Fidesz intentionally remade the Hungarian political system after winning the country’s 2010 election. There is no authoritarian plot behind the GOP’s recent maneuvers, and no secret plan to end elections or declare martial law.

What there is, instead, is systematic disinterest in behaving according to the democratic rules of the game. The GOP views the Democrats as so illegitimate and dangerous that they are willing to employ virtually any tactic that they can think of in order to entrench their own advantage. This is perhaps the party’s core animating ideology, at every level: we must win because the Democrats cannot be given power.

The boldened is especially true: I have family that thinks exactly like this, and for years too. I'm always hearing them constantly complaining they have "no freedom" due to the "radical left" and the Democratic Party. Kow I believe has a huge post somewhere regarding everything here but the facts are clear: the GOP are a monstrous threat and as long as Democrats continually fight each other and view their counterparts as "political opposition" rather than enemies of Democracy, which the GOP calls Democrats, they will succeed in their goals. After all: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

[San Lumen]

https://www.axios.com/local/washington- ... e-election

In a surprising announcement DC Attorney General Karl Racine will not run for Mayor next year or seek reelection.

[Kowani]

[ Kow I believe has a huge post somewhere regarding everything here but the facts are clear: the GOP are a monstrous threat and as long as Democrats continually fight each other and view their counterparts as "political opposition" rather than enemies of Democracy, which the GOP calls Democrats, they will succeed in their goals. After all: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

I want to revamp and explain more things later on, but here-specifically about "polarization" and media framing

[Zurkerx]

[ Kow I believe has a huge post somewhere regarding everything here but the facts are clear: the GOP are a monstrous threat and as long as Democrats continually fight each other and view their counterparts as "political opposition" rather than enemies of Democracy, which the GOP calls Democrats, they will succeed in their goals. After all: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

I want to revamp and explain more things later on, but here-specifically about "polarization" and media framing

Thank you! I look forward to reading your revamp version soon.

[Spirit of Hope]

That said, every state, if nobody actually passes the god damn voting rights bill, should work towards having independent redistricting commissions. They've passed in every state so far.

This is the time where I mention that independent commissions don't actually reduce gerrymandering on average

I'd like to be able to read the full article and see additional research before definitively saying independent commissions don't reduce gerrymandering. After all, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that what an independent commission creates in a non gerymandered state protects elected officials about as much as the normal political process. The commission is unlikely to dramatically change district boundaries, which the elected officials will have won on the last election.

What an independent commission does do is avoid the worst of gerymandering.

[Kowani]

This is the time where I mention that independent commissions don't actually reduce gerrymandering on average

I'd like to be able to read the full article and see additional research before definitively saying independent commissions don't reduce gerrymandering. After all, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that what an independent commission creates in a non gerymandered state protects elected officials about as much as the normal political process. The commission is unlikely to dramatically change district boundaries, which the elected officials will have won on the last election.

What an independent commission does do is avoid the worst of gerymandering.

Sure, it's not really any better for the thesis

[Spirit of Hope]

I'd like to be able to read the full article and see additional research before definitively saying independent commissions don't reduce gerrymandering. After all, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that what an independent commission creates in a non gerymandered state protects elected officials about as much as the normal political process. The commission is unlikely to dramatically change district boundaries, which the elected officials will have won on the last election.

What an independent commission does do is avoid the worst of gerymandering.

Sure, it's not really any better for the thesis

An interesting read. Certainly indicates that independent commissions don't make districts that are more competitive, on average, than politically drawn maps.

However I don't think that is the correct question for gerymandering. The better question would be: do independent commissions lead to representation that better reflects how the population votes?

To illustrate this lets assume a state that is split 50/50 and we have to draw 10 districts in. We could create a map where 5 seats are safe for party A and 5 seats are safe for the party B (option 1), we could create a map where party A dominates 2 seats but then is split up so that the other 8 seats always go to party B (option 2), or we can create a map where both party A and party B are equally represented in each district (option 3).

Under the question of competitiveness option 2 is better than option 1, even though option 2 unfairly boosts part B's power. Option 3 is the most competitive, but means that small swings in the election can lead to one party dominating.

For best results the US should go away from single member, winner takes all, strait most votes wins elections.

[San Lumen]

Sure, it's not really any better for the thesis

An interesting read. Certainly indicates that independent commissions don't make districts that are more competitive, on average, than politically drawn maps.

However I don't think that is the correct question for gerymandering. The better question would be: do independent commissions lead to representation that better reflects how the population votes?

To illustrate this lets assume a state that is split 50/50 and we have to draw 10 districts in. We could create a map where 5 seats are safe for party A and 5 seats are safe for the party B (option 1), we could create a map where party A dominates 2 seats but then is split up so that the other 8 seats always go to party B (option 2), or we can create a map where both party A and party B are equally represented in each district (option 3).

Under the question of competitiveness option 2 is better than option 1, even though option 2 unfairly boosts part B's power. Option 3 is the most competitive, but means that small swings in the election can lead to one party dominating.

For best results the US should go away from single member, winner takes all, strait most votes wins elections.

What would you change it too?

[Shrillland]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/576368-yarmuth-says-hes-retirement-from-congress?amp

John Yarmuth chair of the budget committee will not seek re-election. This is a fairly safe Democratic district based around Louisville.

I wouldn't say it's that safe. Without the long-term incumbent, I think Louisville Central would go slightly more purple. It's where McConnell got his start in politics after all.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/576368-yarmuth-says-hes-retirement-from-congress?amp

John Yarmuth chair of the budget committee will not seek re-election. This is a fairly safe Democratic district based around Louisville.

I wouldn't say it's that safe. Without the long-term incumbent, I think Louisville Central would go slightly more purple. It's where McConnell got his start in politics after all.

Possibly. Biden got 59 percent in Jefferson county.

[Spirit of Hope]

An interesting read. Certainly indicates that independent commissions don't make districts that are more competitive, on average, than politically drawn maps.

However I don't think that is the correct question for gerymandering. The better question would be: do independent commissions lead to representation that better reflects how the population votes?

To illustrate this lets assume a state that is split 50/50 and we have to draw 10 districts in. We could create a map where 5 seats are safe for party A and 5 seats are safe for the party B (option 1), we could create a map where party A dominates 2 seats but then is split up so that the other 8 seats always go to party B (option 2), or we can create a map where both party A and party B are equally represented in each district (option 3).

Under the question of competitiveness option 2 is better than option 1, even though option 2 unfairly boosts part B's power. Option 3 is the most competitive, but means that small swings in the election can lead to one party dominating.

For best results the US should go away from single member, winner takes all, strait most votes wins elections.

What would you change it too?

If I could change the US Constitution at will? Make the Senate proportional voting across the entire US, 6 year term election every 2 years. House of reps I'd probably turn into 3 or 4 member districts with proportional voting, and President would become either instantaneous run off or have a run off between top two candidates. This gets you local representatives with a nation wide proportional representation that is less susceptible to a single election causing huge changes.

[The Andorian System]

You're not wrong: we call that Authoritarianism and the Republican Party has turned into something eerily similar to the likes of Turkey’s AKP, Poland’s PiS, and Hungary’s Fidesz. This is important to note though:

Over the past decade and a half, Republicans have shown disdain for procedural fairness and a willingness to put the pursuit of power over democratic principles. They have implemented measures that make it harder for racial minorities to vote, render votes from Democratic-leaning constituencies irrelevant, and relentlessly blocked Democratic efforts to conduct normal functions of government.

According to Jennifer McCoy, a political scientist at Georgia State University, these measures follow common patterns seen among populist authoritarians who initially win power by electoral means. They tend to pass changes to the electoral system aimed at ensuring “one party dominates government” while also working to marginalize or control “accountability institutions” like the judiciary or oversight watchdogs.

“Many of these leaders are able to do so when they first win a clear majority and then begin to change rules or the constitution to further entrench their advantage and get to supermajorities,” McCoy tells me.


For Republicans, the process of moving toward anti-democracy has taken decades rather than a single election. There was never a single unified GOP plan to lock out Democrats, akin to the way that Fidesz intentionally remade the Hungarian political system after winning the country’s 2010 election. There is no authoritarian plot behind the GOP’s recent maneuvers, and no secret plan to end elections or declare martial law.

What there is, instead, is systematic disinterest in behaving according to the democratic rules of the game. The GOP views the Democrats as so illegitimate and dangerous that they are willing to employ virtually any tactic that they can think of in order to entrench their own advantage. This is perhaps the party’s core animating ideology, at every level: we must win because the Democrats cannot be given power.

The boldened is especially true: I have family that thinks exactly like this, and for years too. I'm always hearing them constantly complaining they have "no freedom" due to the "radical left" and the Democratic Party. Kow I believe has a huge post somewhere regarding everything here but the facts are clear: the GOP are a monstrous threat and as long as Democrats continually fight each other and view their counterparts as "political opposition" rather than enemies of Democracy, which the GOP calls Democrats, they will succeed in their goals. After all: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

The GOP has been on this road for a long time. For decades, the GOP establishment exploited their fringe voters. They tolerated Militia-types, Quazi-fascists and Dominionists in order to get elected. In exchange for power, they would occasionally throw the a bone to their most devoted little puppy.

As time passed, militia types became Info-warriors, Quazi-fascists have flocked to Q-Anon and Dominionists believe that the GOP exists for the greater glory of God. The puppy had grown into a rabid beast, demanding more from its master. The GOP establishment had to feed the beast in order to win elections. Now, the beast has grown too large. It has broken its chains, become uncontrollable and threatens to devour our democracy.

Some have suggested that the GOP is the Stupid Party. In response, the Republican has doubled-down in their defense of Dumbassery, to the detriment of our fair Republic.

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah but how much do democrats have to win by in order to actually have a majority? I feel like in today’s landscape Democrats winning by 4% means a Republican majority.

The current generic ballot tracker is 44% Dem-41% Rep

in order to beat Republican geographic bias, the Democrats need to win...around 51%

That is the most confusing graph I’ve ever seen.

[San Lumen]

https://www.wral.com/you-deserve-better ... /19919282/

Lt. Gov. Robinson wants 'sexually explicit' LGBTQ-themed books removed from North Carolina schools. I hope this man never becomes Governor.

[Kowani]

The current generic ballot tracker is 44% Dem-41% Rep

in order to beat Republican geographic bias, the Democrats need to win...around 51%

That is the most confusing graph I’ve ever seen.

it is...about 2 months old, so the trendline is a bit off (Dems were getting 48% on the generic ballot at the time, and we're 4% below that)
but to sum up
the dotted orange lines mark the confidence interval
the solid orange line marks the current generic ballot polling average (projected)
the important one's the black line-it's what percentage of the vote was needed to overcome the Republican's structural advantage that corresponding year
so ours is set at about 51%

notably, on the 538 graph, the dems have only gotten that high on a few outlier polls