John Boehner wants to sue Obama for "Not doing his job"

[bilateralrope]

Imagine a state with two representatives, one large city, and a large rural hinterland. The shortest splitline that divides the state population in half will probably run straight through the middle of the city, dividing the state into two identical districts that (for instance) each represent 40% urban/suburban and 60% rural voters. In any given election the odds are good that both districts will elect the same sort of people; there's very little functional difference here between the representatives and the senators who are elected statewide. And in either case, the representative has no real incentive to fight hard for either rural or urban voters at the expense of the other, because the loss of votes among one demographic is going to be offset by gaining votes in the other.

Ok, I see how that can be a problem.

A more flexible redistricting scheme as we know it would tend to divide the state into "communities of interest."

What happens when these communities of interest overlap. For example, if a minority group is evenly dispersed among the population ?
Meaning a situation where if you want to split these groups up, you have to split them up on a house by house basis. Or just declare that some of these groups don't matter.

Then we get into political parties drawing the borders to benefit themselves using 'communities of interest' as justification. Which is the one thing I had been looking at previously.

What if the algorithm tried to draw districts to group people of similar incomes together ?


I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a way to define districts that is 'fair' enough for my satisfaction under a first past the post system.

[Siege]

Well, the argument is that the very existence of the media as we know it, as opposed to the media of the '70s and earlier, has changed the dynamic.

Sure 24 hours a day news channels have changed the dynamic. So have the Internet, smart phones and a host of other things. What I am disputing is that the media are at the core of the problem, because I don't think that they are.

Politicians will always do what they have to in order to get elected... but "what they have to do" is shaped by the media. On the one hand they can't have mistresses without getting in trouble anymore, but on the other hand, if they make a compromise with the other side their electoral base finds out they "folded" in a matter of minutes and hears it repeated for days, after weeks of buildup about "who will fold first?"

See, this is the bit I disagree with. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Because media would not build up an issue for days, much less weeks, when there wasn't an audience that gobbles that shit up for such extended periods of time. In commercial media ratings are king: you don't sell advertisements if you don't have an audience, and in a world where there's 55 channels or more to zap to with the press of a button it's more difficult than ever draw in and retain that audience.

TV audiences aren't zombies. A TV station can't just repeat something ad nauseam and expect people to stick around unless those people want to hear that something repeated over and over again. Viewers don't tune in as tabula rasa and there's no captive audience: the only audience for repeated information therefore is an audiences that wants to have its pre-existing views reinforced, be they conservative or liberal.

If the audience of liberal-minded people is commercially interesting enough a liberally-slanted news channel will pop up to cater to those people. And once that channel exist then of course liberal politicians will seek it out because that's what their target audience is watching. And the channel will invite those politicians back because they notice an uptick in liberal viewers when liberal politicians say liberal things, which means the channel can charge more money for adds from companies that want to advertise to that demographic. This is (in very broad strokes) how commercial media ecosystems function.

At the root of all this is the basic human trait that we as individuals are unlikely to actively seek out information that challenges existing perceptions and convictions. FOX News exists because a segment of the electorate desires the content it produces. Likewise MSNBC, likewise any commercial TV channel. People pick their own little echo chambers within their own little comfort zones and dislike to venture too far out. This isn't the media's fault. TV channels don't make the viewer watch them. They don't prevent people from changing the channel either. TV is a passive medium: it's the viewer who tunes in. Now once that's happened the steady drip of slanted information will influence how the audience feels about certain issues, but that in no way negates the fact that the audience tuned in first.

The problem therefore isn't the media, it's the audience. Because without the audience, the media wouldn't exist at all. And the only way to change the audience is by educating it, not by berating the media it consumes.

[Patroklos]

Media is a product for consumption like any other. Sometimes that means making more of the same to satisfy demand as you said, but sometimes that means creating new products or markets stimulate demand.

[Simon_Jester]

Media is a product for consumption like any other. Sometimes that means making more of the same to satisfy demand as you said, but sometimes that means creating new products or markets stimulate demand.

The ideal condition for a large corporation is the ability to sell a product that stimulates its own demand, so that the more you sell, the greater the brand loyalty others have to your product. Tobacco is the dream example because it's actively addictive, but lesser examples like Microsoft software or automobiles apply too.

If enough people use your software, there are hidden benefits to adopting it for compatibility's sake... until it becomes the universal standard. If enough people buy and use cars, they start living in towns laid out for cars, and now they MUST buy cars, even if they're planned-obsolescence hunks of junk.

Recognizing how we've gotten caught in a cycle of dependency with a product that we consume in ways that hurt us is not enough to fix the problems caused by the cycle. But it helps- if nothing else, it helps us realize that modern politicians aren't refusing to compromise because they're somehow stupider or more evil... they're doing it because we select for congressmen who are more terrified of looking weak than they are of national disaster. Or who can convincingly show confidence that nothing is really wrong, even as things fall apart.

Ok, I see how that can be a problem.

A more flexible redistricting scheme as we know it would tend to divide the state into "communities of interest."

What happens when these communities of interest overlap. For example, if a minority group is evenly dispersed among the population ?

Since the Constitution of the United States requires that all electoral districts for the House be defined geographically, there's nothing to be done about it. On the other hand, the only 'minority'* I can think of that is evenly distributed throughout the population is women. Who, well, it turns out do have a problem getting represented; we have debates on women's health issues in committees in Congress where no women are present.

But we can't fix that without drastically, radically changing the Constitution in a way that very few Americans actually feel any desire for.

*In the sociological sense of the word 'minority.'

What if the algorithm tried to draw districts to group people of similar incomes together ?

Poor people inside a city and poor people on a farm have very different interests.

I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a way to define districts that is 'fair' enough for my satisfaction under a first past the post system.

In that case, revise your expectations. Or privately draft a document on your opinions about 'best' government... but then recognize no real nation will suddenly shout "hurrah!" and adopt your dream constitution overnight.

Well, the argument is that the very existence of the media as we know it, as opposed to the media of the '70s and earlier, has changed the dynamic.

Sure 24 hours a day news channels have changed the dynamic. So have the Internet, smart phones and a host of other things. What I am disputing is that the media are at the core of the problem, because I don't think that they are.

Fair enough.

It's reasonable to argue that a stupid electorate is the root of the problem. Me, I tend to try to figure out how the electorate got so stupid. People are not, on the whole, actually less educated or intelligent than they were thirty or forty years ago. Not even in the US. So I look for external forces that might explain why we're not using our damn brains.

See, this is the bit I disagree with. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Because media would not build up an issue for days, much less weeks, when there wasn't an audience that gobbles that shit up for such extended periods of time. In commercial media ratings are king: you don't sell advertisements if you don't have an audience, and in a world where there's 55 channels or more to zap to with the press of a button it's more difficult than ever draw in and retain that audience...

The problem therefore isn't the media, it's the audience. Because without the audience, the media wouldn't exist at all. And the only way to change the audience is by educating it, not by berating the media it consumes.

Hm. My perception is that the modern form of news media has played a large role in miseducating and de-educating Americans on how government is supposed to work. There are now thirtysomethings and fortysomethings who've basically grown up on a diet of wingnut talk radio that tells them everything they know or believe about how politics and the owrld work.

BUT that is a perception based on history, not a perception about how to fix things.

[Maraxus]

What happens when these communities of interest overlap. For example, if a minority group is evenly dispersed among the population ?
Meaning a situation where if you want to split these groups up, you have to split them up on a house by house basis. Or just declare that some of these groups don't matter.

Then we get into political parties drawing the borders to benefit themselves using 'communities of interest' as justification. Which is the one thing I had been looking at previously.

What if the algorithm tried to draw districts to group people of similar incomes together ?


I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a way to define districts that is 'fair' enough for my satisfaction under a first past the post system.

It can be a hard issue to grapple with. There are lots of minority-majority seats, especially in big cities like LA, NYC, and Chicago. Some Latino representatives serve in districts that are 20% Black and 15% Asian. Who do they represent in Congress? Who do their constituents think they represent?

As for the political parties drawing it for their own benefits, that gets tricky too. Black voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic in Presidential elections, particularly when Obama was on the ballot. They're the most consistently loyal voting bloc in the country, and almost always vote for Democratic candidates for every level of government. Would drawing multiple districts with strong Black communities (40% of a district say) count as a political gerrymander? Nobody really seems to know the answer to that question, or at least the Supremes don't.

Redistricting is inherently political that way. You have to decide winners and losers because people don't live in neat and tidy ways. Every community (whatever that may be) has its own interests and you have to decide, effectively, which interests deserve substantial representation. It's often unfair, regardless of whether or not you're trying to blast your enemies off the map. Limiting partisan redistricting is a wonderful idea. Nobody, apparently, knows how to make it work.

American elections are screwed up in a thousand different ways, and gerrymandering is one of them. It's just not, in my mind anyway, too big of an issue. Certainly not in comparison to others.

[bilateralrope]

In that case, revise your expectations. Or privately draft a document on your opinions about 'best' government... but then recognize no real nation will suddenly shout "hurrah!" and adopt your dream constitution overnight.

My 'best' method is not something that no nation will adopt. It's preferred method is proportional representation. Which several governments have already adopted, including the country I live in.

It's also something I can't see happening in the US.

Redistricting is inherently political that way. You have to decide winners and losers because people don't live in neat and tidy ways. Every community (whatever that may be) has its own interests and you have to decide, effectively, which interests deserve substantial representation. It's often unfair, regardless of whether or not you're trying to blast your enemies off the map. Limiting partisan redistricting is a wonderful idea. Nobody, apparently, knows how to make it work.

It might not be possible to make it work.

American elections are screwed up in a thousand different ways, and gerrymandering is one of them. It's just not, in my mind anyway, too big of an issue. Certainly not in comparison to others.

Yes, that is a much bigger problem. But I have nothing to say on that problem that hasn't been said by other SDN members.