r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/theVoxFortis • 23d ago
What's going to happen to redistricting in Wisconsin given control of the state government is split? US Politics
There are already several lawsuits around the issue: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/conservatives-file-redistricting-lawsuit-wisconsin-79604788.
It seems state laws don't handle if the legislature and governor cannot agree on redistricting. Do we have any idea what we expect to happen to the redistricting in the state?
105
u/phoenix1984 23d ago
Serious answer, the final map will likely be drawn by the courts. There’s precedent for it in cases like this. The question is how gerrymandered will the court drawn maps be? How openly partisan is the “non-partisan” court willing to go before they risk loosing legitimacy in the eyes of the public? I think this largely depends on which court it winds up in. SCOWI, is probably willing to bet it all. SCOTUS might not be willing to be so partisan for one measly state. State legislature cases will likely go to SCOWI. Federal Representative maps will likely go to SCOTUS. There are exceptions to either situation. It’s a big mess.
Either way, all maps will probably be less gerrymandered than we have today, but still favor the GOP.
17
u/onkel_axel 22d ago
But no precedent for Federal Court to redraw. Don't think it will ever come to that.
26
u/CheeseStandsAlone262 22d ago
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is intensely partisan and ideological. Remember that they were the closest to accepting one of Trump's "overturn the election" lawsuits, voting only 4-3 against Trump. And even that was with one of the conservatives splitting and voting with the liberals.
14
u/Marvelman1788 22d ago
If you look at his record I would argue Hagedorn (conservative) is very much so a swing vote in regards to voting rights. He's voted with the liberal side preventing a voter roll purge, allowing the mail in ballots to be sent after the green party and republican's tried to force a re-print, and threw out Trumps election challenges.
77
u/AcidDropkick 23d ago
In Wisconsin, the Democrats have won nearly every election in the last six years but the GOP has taken 63% of the seats. Fucking criminals, man.
9
u/WingerRules 22d ago edited 21d ago
The very first bill the administration should have been pushing for is a clean anti-gerrymandering bill. Now its too late and the US house is on a path to be gerrymandered for the next decade or more.
6
u/socialistrob 22d ago
No way that would get through with the filibuster in place which means Senate Dems would have to be willing to abandon the filibuster with a 50-50 "majority".
1
4
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
The Democrats get more total votes but not in every district. That's why the GOP holds more seats than it seems like they should. Take out Madison and Milwaukee and Wisconsin is mostly red, with the exception of a few pockets where few people live.
That's why drawing the new maps is such a big deal.
42
u/FFIFISISHFISHFISH 22d ago
That was his point
-6
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
I don't know what makes it criminal though which seemed to be his main point.
-25
u/Flowman 22d ago
Because he's one of those people that uses metrics that do not actually determine victory to complain that his preferred team/party/candidate didn't win. It's like people who complain about Hillary losing to Trump because she had more popular votes, knowing good and damn well popular votes never was the metric needed to win.
9
-12
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
Seems like it. I am not up to speed on every district but I think the GOP really only benefited from a handful of questionable gerrymandered districts to get where they are. As much as I don't like it, the GOP in WI has a ton of support, gerrymandering or not.
18
u/darena 22d ago
It has a lot less support than the democrats do, and yet wins the majority of control.. do you see the issue? Land doesn’t vote, and yet our pathetic system makes land worth far more than voters.
-6
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
No, I don't see the issue. The people in Wausau want GOP reps. There is no reason more votes in Madison for the Democrats should mean that the people in the Wausau district get a Democrat to represent them.
Do you understand that there is an assembly and state senate in WI as well as the governor? The only race out of those three that is a statewide election is the governor and that's where raw vote numbers count and now we have a Democrat as governor because of that.
7
-5
u/Fargason 22d ago
Should noncompetitive districts and states be able to overruled the votes of the competitive ones? For example, because California is noncompetitive and has 10 million extra votes, does that mean they should influence a dozen other competitive states? What is pathetic is requiring undue influence to win elections. All districts/states get to decide what is in their best interest and no amount of votes from others should change that.
12
u/darena 22d ago
Let’s start at the state level given that’s the topic at hand.
Rural districts with more land than people are given outsized influence in our system, to the point where the party that controls those districts is able to maintain complete control over state functions despite getting the minority of the vote. That is a problem.
What you are talking about is the opposite situation. The majority of voters chose a path, and the country would follow it. Democracy in action..
Why should the minority be allowed to rule over the majority? Especially given that that minority tends towards uneducated.
→ More replies4
u/Snatchamo 22d ago
If the districts were drawn fairly it wouldn't be a issue. The problem is when politicians get to choose their voters with aggressive gerrymandering. It sucks on a state level because it cements minoritarian rule over the majority. It sucks for the districts too because any asshole with the right letter next to their name wins automatically. If a politician doesn't have to compete to woo voters than there's a much higher chance of a nut or idiot getting the seat.
→ More replies24
u/DrunkenAsparagus 22d ago
The system is deliberately designed by incumbents to reelect incumbents. In 2018, the total vote share gotten by Democrats running for the state house swung by about 8 points, but only 1 seat changed hands. This is an extreme form of gerrymandering that has removed democratic accountability from the system by members of that system.
2
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago edited 22d ago
Look at the full map of the state from the 2020 presidential election. There are a fuck ton of Republican voters in WI. The Democrats only control a small amount of the area in the state and that's just the way it is.
Any redraw that would drastically change this would be the same thing only it would benefit the Democrats more.
For the record, I am a Democrat living in one of the three counties in the far northern part of the state. We are blue up here bit it's because of Labor not the urban liberal faction like we have in Madison and Milwaukee.
21
u/DrunkenAsparagus 22d ago
This isn't even the election that I was talking about. Please explain to me how a state can swing 8 points in an election and only change 1 seat without a deliberate attempt to retain incumbency for one party.
1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
Because there are more GOP districts, most of which would remain GOP districts no matter how you draw the district maps.
18
u/DrunkenAsparagus 22d ago
Again, this doesn't really get at it. I don't deny that Wisconsin political geography favors most seats having a GOP lean, assuming you draw each district to have one seat. However, a 7.8 point swing is pretty large, and even if much of that change is on a few areas, that leaves a lot of cushion for incumbents. Making a district have mostly like-minded constituents is one goal you can have in redistricting, but it's not the only one. If you perfectly sort communities, you leave very little room for democratic accountability, and remove the incentive of state legislators to respond to changes in the electorate.
→ More replies7
u/PinchesTheCrab 22d ago
Is your premise is that no districts can be merged or created and that districts shouldn't have roughly the same number of constituents? Why not merge rural districts with few people and split urban and suburban districts?
-1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago edited 22d ago
The population of Wisconsin is not evenly dispersed so , no, I don't think each district should be have about the same number of voters or at least not any differently than they are now.
I have no idea how your second point would make sense.
14
u/fighting_kismet 22d ago
So, let's make sure we all get what your saying. Because rural voters are more dispersed over land area, they should have more representation than people in more densely populated areas? So, representation should be related to land area, not per voter?
Edit for clarity
→ More replies3
u/thebsoftelevision 21d ago
I'm sure Republicans will cede power to a nonpartisan redistricting commission if their geographical advantages are truly insurmountable in Wisconsin, right?
1
u/PabstyTheClown 21d ago
They may not have a choice if the courts decide that's how it will happen from now on.
What do you propose and how would you get the authority to do it your way?
1
u/thebsoftelevision 21d ago
They do have a choice though, and they will not cede anything because they don't agree with your assessment that their advantages under the current maps are intrinsic to Wisconsin's geography.
What would I have them do? Institute a nonpartisan redistricting committee similar to the one in Arizona or Colorado to handle redistricting but they won't agree to that because they do gerrymander.
→ More replies6
u/Olderscout77 22d ago
The notion that Dems only controlling a small AREA of Wisconsin has meaning in an election BY THE PEOPLE indicates a belief we should award more votes to farmers with 1500 acres than to apartment dwellers with 500sf??? How very Republican.
→ More replies2
1
u/kerouacrimbaud 22d ago
Voters determine elections, not land area. That is irrelevant to democracy.
-1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
Land area is not how the districts in WI are drawn so your point is irrelevant.
→ More replies7
2
u/Hartastic 20d ago
ake out Madison and Milwaukee and Wisconsin is mostly red
Just so we're clear, you're saying, "If we pull a specific roughly half of the population out of a state, it would vote really differently."
→ More replies-3
u/Flowman 22d ago
So then they didn't win the elections.
8
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
No, they definitely did. The assembly and senate are not statewide elections. The GOP won more districts, a lot of which don't have a lot of people living in them, at least not compared to Dane County and Milwaukee.
-8
u/Flowman 22d ago
How did they win the elections? Each district has its own elections and by your own admission, the GOP won more of the districts and ended up with more seats. Therefore, to claim that the Democrats won the elections but ended up with less seats is a non-sequitur.
Sounds like you're saying that because the Democrats had more statewide votes that they won, but you know good and damn well that's not how the system has ever worked at any time. So why are you being so intentionally obtuse about it?
11
u/fighting_kismet 22d ago
You all are still missing the point. That system is broken. Why does a representative of a rural district have to win a majority of a few thousand voters, but one of an urban district have to win the majority of 10s or 100s of thousands? Districts should be divided across approximation equal voters, that would be fairer. Or more of a parliamentry system with proportional appointments.
-10
u/Flowman 22d ago
A system isn't broken unless the system isn't doing what it's designed to do. Meaning the output is different than expected. The system is designed to elect representatives, full stop. It has done that with nearly flawless efficiency. It was never designed to be "fair."
You're complaining because you aren't getting more of the representatives you prefer in places where you don't live. In short: You want to change the rules so you can get the results you want. This is akin to lowering the basketball goal a few inches to make it easier to dunk. Changing pass interference rules in football to make it easier to catch touchdowns.
10
u/fighting_kismet 22d ago
So, it's a fair system because it's giving results 'you' agree with? And, if it was leading to results you disagree with, would it still be fair?
-7
u/Flowman 22d ago
The result is representatives get elected. If the system does that, then I don't care. If it starts failing to elect representatives, then yes, it needs to be changed.
Stop confusing this with me desiring a certain candidate or party. It's not about that at all.
4
u/kerouacrimbaud 22d ago
That’s kind of a random metric though right? If the system changed tomorrow such that only people with odd numbered addresses can vote in state leg elections then you have no objection to that by your own statement. It still elects representatives, just in a completely silly way.
→ More replies9
2
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
Wait, maybe I misunderstood your initial post that I responded to. Were you saying the Democrats didn't win the elections? I thought you meant the GOP.
I agree completely with what you just wrote.
Sorry for the confusion.
2
0
u/WorksInIT 22d ago
Are we even sure the maps need to be redrawn? Wisconsin retained its 8 seats, so as long as the population didn't shift too much, the current distracts may be retained as well.
4
u/phoenix1984 22d ago
In Wisconsin they do. Madison has been growing rapidly. Milwaukee saw some decline. The other cities like Green Bay, LaCrosse, Racine, Kenosha, Wausau and Eau Claire all saw modest increases. The smaller towns and rural areas continued their steady decline. For the federal map, District 3 is the worst and should be redrawn for sure. It should should be a “western wisconsin” district and go further north. The rest are “pretty close” but will need some adjustment to get an even population dispersement.
At the state legislature level, it’s hella gerrymandered and definitely needs starting over from scratch.
2
u/WorksInIT 22d ago
Sure, but is that legally required? If the districts are within that +/- 5% mark, or whatever it is, then technically they can be used again. They don't have to actually draw new districts. So does it actually have to change? I understand your position, but just because it is hella gerrymandered doesn't mean they are legally required to draw new maps.
3
u/phoenix1984 22d ago
District 2 definitely does. Madison grew by 16%. I also suspect 7 needs to expand to make up for the decline in rural areas.
→ More replies
120
u/bigdon802 23d ago
Sounds like a great opportunity to hire a nonpartisan firm to redistrict based on voting convenience instead of this wild thing we do currently.
112
u/oath2order 23d ago
The Republicans in Wisconsin hold the legislative seats they do solely because of gerrymandering. There is no world in which they willingly give that up.
4
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
There are a lot of red districts in WI, gerrymandering or not. I think it's only a handful of wacky maps that the GOP might stand to lose in a redraw of the maps.
25
u/Walter_Sobchak07 22d ago
I mean, the results of the 2011 redistricting has been studied. It's been absolutely devastating to Democrats.
To say gerrymandering didn't play a role in that is a stretch. Republicans drew those districts for a reason.
1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
I can't read that, it's behind a paywall. Which districts are wrong?
8
u/Walter_Sobchak07 22d ago
Read through the link if you're genuinely curious. All the court cases make the argument in whatever direction you chose to side with.
→ More replies8
u/larsonsam2 22d ago
Districts don't have inherent qualities. "Red districts" aren't born, they are created. The only reason they exist is because of gerrymandering.
9
21
u/AbleCaterpillar3919 23d ago
Yes but that will never happen lol not even if you could find a nonpartisan firm in the first place.
5
12
u/an_m_8ed 23d ago
Oh hey, I just found out I'm one of 8 states that has that after thinking this was normal. I now realize I'm an underwhelming minority and am not surprised to see that WI isn't on the list. How is this federally legal?
10
u/Splotim 22d ago
A lot of republicans (and some democrats) only have their seats because of gerrymandering. Republicans will really struggle to win the house if it was truly representative because they lose the popular vote fairly consistently. So for republicans there is no incentive to change it.
-5
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
They lose the total amount of votes because the two major population centers are decidedly blue. They win a lot of seats because the senate and assembly aren't statewide elections and most of the rest of the state is red.
10
u/DrunkenAsparagus 22d ago
In 2018, an 8 point vote swing led to only 1 seat changing hands. That is well beyond using the redistricting process to represent like-minded communities. That is a deliberate attempt by Republicans to avoid any democratic accountability and maintain one-party rule of the legislature.
10
u/bigdon802 22d ago
Yeah, because of the gerrymandering. Representative districts are based on population, so they should lose that too.
-2
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago edited 22d ago
Not really. Outside of Madsion, Milwaukee, and three counties in the far north where I live, the state is mostly red. There is only a handful of districts that might switch to blue if the maps are redrawn.
-3
u/discourse_friendly 23d ago
Or the republicans propose something the Gov won't accept, he proposes something they won't accept and then they *GASP* compromise... :O
3
u/thebsoftelevision 21d ago
I'm sure their governor will accept the appointment of a nonpartisan commission to draw fair and competitive maps. Evers isn't the one holding back progress...
71
u/BUSean 23d ago
It'll end up better than in 2010, which put Wisconsin into a monstrous gerrymander for a decade.
21
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
How so? It's likely to end up in the State Supreme Court which is controlled by the GOP. There isn't even an attempt to make the Court look neutral in WI, it's openly political.
4
u/cbarrister 23d ago
I thought that one democratic lady won a SC seat last term?
5
u/Calencre 22d ago
If I remember correctly, WI is still 1 SC seat in favor of the GOP. Their next election could swing the court I think, but that's not for a little bit.
5
u/Camp_Camp_Camp_Camp 22d ago
The court is technically non-partisan. Hagedorn has been acting as centrist, siding with liberals multiple times on voting issues.
2
u/thebsoftelevision 21d ago
He's hardly a centrist and only votes with the liberal faction on clear cut issues(like Trump's election challenge). The rest of the conservative faction on the court is just that bad.
36
u/Dblg99 23d ago
Weren't a lot of elections between 2012-2020 Dem favored or 50/50 but Republicans still ended up with 60%+ of the state seats? That's about as awful of a gerrymander as you can get, literally fascist level of a power grab
34
u/thatoneguy889 23d ago
In 2020, Democrats got a majority of the votes statewide, but Republicans still ended up with a near supermajority in the legislature.
0
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
But that's not how the election results are tallied and you know it.
11
u/jo-z 22d ago
Do the people throughout the state have equal representation or not?
1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
I think so for the most part. There are a few districts that might switch from GOP to Democrat, depending on a new map, but by and large, the reps from each district reflect the majority of opinions in each district.
7
u/jo-z 22d ago
That's not what I meant. How closely does the proportion of D's and R's in the state legislature correspond to the proportion of D's and R's in the general population?
1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
That only matters for statewide elections. Each district is free to elect who they want representing them.
There are simply more GOP districts in WI.
6
u/jo-z 22d ago
You don't think it's a problem that there are nearly twice as many Republicans as Democrats in the state legislature when the state's population is split almost evenly? Why do you think it's ok for there to simply be more GOP districts when there are just as many Democrats as Republicans in the state?
→ More replies34
u/dr_jiang 23d ago
It's a masterpiece of gerrymandering. The state assembly has 99 seats. Republicans won 200,000 fewer votes than Democrats state-wide, and walked away with 63 seats.
The GOP-drawn map hard-packs Democratic voters into a handful of overwhelmingly blue districts. In 26 of the 36 seats held by Democrats, the partisan makeup of the electorate is +40D. The remainder of the state is filled with a dozen seats that might flip in a massive wave election, and then 60 safe +5-10R districts, where Democrats routinely lose by 7-10%.
1
u/MeowTheMixer 22d ago
The GOP-drawn map hard-packs Democratic voters into a handful of overwhelmingly blue districts.
Democrats also live in hard packed democratic voting areas. Look how Dane/Milwaukee counties votes. Trying to split that up so it's a 55/45 vote split would require just as much gerrymandering.
There are some janky districts but i wouldn't expect a new district map to flip the results just based on how the population is distributed.
3
25
u/Cranyx 23d ago
literally fascist level of a power grab
I agree it's bad, but let's not misuse this term to the point of somehow meaning "fascism is when you do gerrymandering"
28
u/Dblg99 23d ago
Would authoritarian be better? It's quite literally the opposite of democratic and while fascist might be too harsh, I'm not sure of how many words are anti-democracy and steal power from the citizens like fascist does.
21
u/Apprentice57 23d ago
Authoritarian would be better, yeah, IMO. Fascism is a brand of authoritarianism but one heavily based on a lot of social politics and hierarchical thinking/racism/discrimination/etc.
Gerrymandering can absolutely be a part of Fascism, and I think it is right now, but in and of itself it doesn't invoke social politics (for the most part...).
0
u/Flowman 22d ago
Explain, precisely, how it is authoritarian.
6
u/Apprentice57 22d ago
Using political power to restrict freedom, in this case restricting political speech (making voting less effective).
-2
u/Flowman 22d ago
Elaborate on this notion. How, specifically, is political speech being restricted? How is freedom being restricted?
9
u/Apprentice57 22d ago
Voting is a key part of political speech, and Gerrymandering makes it much less effective.
→ More replies3
u/ilikedota5 23d ago
I agree, actual fascist regimes (depending on definitions) would include Erdogan's Turkey and Xi's China.
11
u/rainbowhotpocket 22d ago
China is not fascist. They are horrifically authoritarian and deserve to be toppled, but they are communist in name, state capitalist in function.
Turkey is a weird quasi theocratic dictatorship. But it isn't fascist either.
Dictator doesn't mean fascist.
3
u/ilikedota5 22d ago
One of the components of fascism is an us vs them mentality. Its quite strong in China, considering how much the milk the century of humiliation to stoke hypernationalism and militarism. Its also on suspiciously ethnic lines too.
Turkey also has that us vs them mentality, although there's is moreso on religious lines than ethnic lines, although we do see some of that when it comes to the Kurds and other minorities. They've been casting themselves as the savior of Islam, being the only country to stand up to China's persecution of the Uyghars. Erdogan has also been attempting to dismantle the judiciary through court packing.
21
u/Cranyx 23d ago
Still not sure I'd agree with those. They're authoritarian, but fascism is a specific political ideology that doesn't really accurately describe them. For example, a big part of fascism is the cult of tradition where you invent some glorious past you wish to return to; China's whole philosophy right now is about moving forward.
1
u/ilikedota5 22d ago
Confucianism was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, but its seen a resurgence of sorts, condoned by the government too.
1
u/Cranyx 22d ago
That still doesn't mean that they have some sort of cult of tradition or a rejection of modernity (Umberto Eco's first 2 points of Fascism.)
→ More replies9
u/Loop_Within_A_Loop 23d ago
Yeah, if Wisconsin was not a US state, and it had valuable resources, the US would use their elections as a pretense to invade
2
u/indielib 22d ago
The same happened in Nevada except against Republicans . It was a court drawn map. Geography matters as well.
-20
u/AbleCaterpillar3919 23d ago
Both parties do it alot https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/28/marylands-redistricting-case-reminds-us-both-parties-gerrymander-a-lot/%3foutputType=amp
https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it
If you want to fix it do what California did
28
u/Hangry_Hippo 23d ago
https://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
One party does it way more than the other
-12
4
u/DaBigBlackDaddy 23d ago
One party is fighting to end it while the other is fighting to keep it alive.
22
u/CCHistProfWest 23d ago
Wisconsin is already gerrymandered about as well as it can be.
If you use 538's redictricting map, you can't really draw out Democrats from the Madison or Milwaukee seats without being absurdly aggressive and blatantly undemocratic by not representing huge swaths of people.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/wisconsin/
Ron Kind's seat was probably going to be lost no matter the new map. So Republocans will draw in such a way to make district 3 more Republican, and work to make districts 1 and 6 more comfortably red. Those were both a little too close for comfort for Rs in 2018.
It'll be a 6R-2D map.
13
u/Dathlos 22d ago
I don't think that scotus would care if they drew 8R-0D maps by super cracking metro areas.
Same with a 80-19 state legislative map
5
u/ballmermurland 21d ago
It is impossible to shut D's out entirely if they get at least 50% of the vote share. What is possible is packing as many as they can into a D+90 district and then having 7 relatively safe R districts. Even in a year where D's win Wisconsin with 51-52% of the vote, R's could get 7 out of 8 seats.
1
u/Mesko149 22d ago
Cracking Milwaukee in a way that produces a 8R-0D delegation would easily be one of the most blatant and egregious violations of the VRA's redistricting regulations in modern history. The Brnovich decision indicates that SCOTUS is not eager to act on vote denial claims, but it doesn't apply to vote dilution issues.
8
u/Future_Tyrant 23d ago
Given polarization along urban-rural lines, it’s more likely than not that there’s a 6-2 R map with Dem seats based in Milwaukee and Madison without a horrendous gerrymander. Ron Kind’s seat was drawn as a Dem vote sink and it’s most likely going to flip in 2022
3
u/Jawyp 22d ago
State Supreme court ends up drawing the maps after Evers vetos legislative GOP gerrymanders.
The court is 4-3 conservative, but one of the conservative justices (Brian Hagedorn) has repeatedly ruled against the GOP in high profile cases, so it’s likely the state maps are considerably more fair for the next decade.
2
u/[deleted] 23d ago
[removed]
45
u/oath2order 23d ago
Because third parties have an extremely unlikely chance of winning in a FPTP system.
17
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
And they fuck up the chances of whomever is the main party on either side of the aisle. On the left, it's the Progressives or Green and on the right it's the Libertarians and some other groups.
18
u/Hologram22 23d ago
On the right it's the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. If you don't know, the Constitution Party is the unofficial purist party of the Christian Identity movement, which is openly antisemitic and seeks to impose a kind of theocratic fascist state.
6
1
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
I don't really follow the fringe parties on either side so thanks for the info.
-1
u/[deleted] 22d ago
Don't be fooled by these parties because they are also against democracy as well.
-13
u/[deleted] 23d ago
[removed]
19
u/Cranyx 23d ago edited 23d ago
Libertarians in America are a right wing ideology, and as such pull votes away from Republicans when they vote for the (L) candidate. You can look at the data and see that when push comes to shove, libertarians will vote for a republican long before a democrat.
Your "vote democrat as some sort of hairbrained scheme to game the gold market" stance is an extreme anomaly. The fact that you think Democrats would be worse for the economy kind of proves my point that your ideology is more in line with Republicans.
-4
u/rainbowhotpocket 22d ago
Libertarians in America are a right wing ideology
No.
I am a centrist libertarian (georgist), i despise the right wing.
Do not mischaracterize the ideology.
5
u/Cranyx 22d ago
There can be left wing libertarianism, but 99% of the time when people talk about libertarians in the US they're talking about the right wing kind.
→ More replies12
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
If you look at the official party platform for the Libertarian Party in the US, a lot of aligns with what used to be the GOP platform.
That said, the GOP no longer has a platform so it's impossible to say whether that is still true or not.
1
-3
u/rainbowhotpocket 22d ago
Except the Republican party isn't liberal anymore. It's auth-right.
As a libertarian, i find the republican party despicable
-7
u/SpoonerismHater 23d ago
Not necessarily. That assumes the person voting would have gone for one of the two parties in the absence of said third party. For example—in 2020, Democrats sued to get the Green Party off the ballot in my state; so I didn’t vote. (They also lost downballot votes since I didn’t vote at all, rather than ignoring just the Presidential election.)
I would imagine the difference between allowing third parties and not allowing them on ballots would change the numbers, but I don’t believe there’s any reason to think it would change election outcomes.
9
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
Yeah, well, all I know is that I voted for Nader in 2000 and my vote along with all the others cast by people that thought Gore had it in the bag and thought we were going to have a seat at the table when he won were rudely served 8 years of George fucking Bush instead.
1
u/SpoonerismHater 22d ago
Did you vote in Florida?
1
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
I voted absentee but I was actually in Florida for the election.
2
u/SpoonerismHater 22d ago
Well, if it helps, Florida is the only state that really mattered, and your specific vote didn’t change the outcome — not to mention the shenanigans regarding the recount
4
u/CCHistProfWest 23d ago
Probably not many votes lost there. Jill Stein was only crucial in one state in 2016 - Michigan. Not enough to flip the election.
Not sure about the downballot congressional level... maybe getting some Greens would have saved that Iowa seat that was decided by 6 votes.
4
u/[deleted] 23d ago
[removed]
-7
u/[deleted] 22d ago
[removed]
3
u/Zappiticas 22d ago
Ah yes, the president with the most progressive agenda since maybe FDR is just a “racist rapist conservative”
-4
1
u/DisastrousBarnacle60 22d ago edited 22d ago
Getting Greens to 5% of the national vote gets them federal funding.
It's likely you're very young and haven't been hearing this since the 90s, so you don't know what a joke this statement is.
The best the greens have ever done is 2.7%, with Nader on the ticket. They haven't cleared more than 1% since. Hell, they've never even been elected to anything above a state house. But sure, next election, surely they'll hit that mythical 5%.
I stand by my comment. Some critical thinking about better ways to spend your time than voting for the Green Party is in your best interest.
And at least my conscience is clear
I mean, it's very clear from the level of your political analysis that this is of the utmost importance to you. Performative nonsense that only serves to make you feel better is something one normally grows out of, so you probably will too.
1
u/SpoonerismHater 22d ago
It’s enjoyable seeing someone with no arguments turn to absurd ad hominems.
Taking the long-term view, it would’ve been better if Trump had been elected. January 2021 through January 2025 is/will be virtually the same between them; it’s going to suck, we’re not going to get COVID under control for years, cops are still killing blacks, no universal healthcare, no serious action on the climate, etc. Trump at least allows a potentially good Democratic candidate to run in 2024, so with him January 2025 through January 2029 would still have a chance of not being terrible. Biden’s already ruined the entire decade. If I had been forced to vote between Biden and Trump, I would’ve voted Trump. But I guess my “performative” vote of not choosing a racist rapist conservative is something you’re opposed to; you would’ve rather I voted Trump, I guess.
But sure, pretend that your vote — which, last I checked, didn’t change any electoral outcomes — is any more or less performative than any other vote.
1
u/DisastrousBarnacle60 22d ago
it would’ve been better if Trump had been elected.
Biden’s already ruined the entire decade.
Just incredible stuff. I look forward to ignoring you.
→ More replies10
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
We are just glad we at least have a Democrat as a governor. The previous decade was abysmal due to the fact that GOP controlled all three branches.
1
u/oath2order 23d ago
That could have been stopped had the Democrats not flopped the recall.
9
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
They didn't have a candidate. They wheeled out the same guy that Walker stomped a year earlier.
4
u/oath2order 23d ago
Yes, that's why I said they flopped it.
7
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
Honestly, the Democrats struggle to field good candidates all the time in WI. It's pretty much what they are known for. It was a minor miracle that Evers won.
6
u/DamienSalvation 23d ago
He was their best shot, unfortunately. The Kathleens would have had it worse though Vinehout could have been good with a better team.
3
u/PabstyTheClown 23d ago
Vinehout would have been a good choice. Falk on the other hand is among the stupidest politicians I have ever heard of.
4
u/robotical712 22d ago
A successful recall was always a long shot because a nontrivial number of voters who would have voted against Walker in a regular election saw the recall as frivolous.
-3
u/L1b3rtarian 23d ago
*SHRUG* wouldn't know.. Im not a Republican or Democrat and do not have a monopoly on American politics like they do.. so my voice, vote, etc is never heard or represented................ My candidates are not even allowed to debate...
So I just buy gold and silver.. and vote democrat to keep that money printer rolling.
1
u/FortunateSyzygy 22d ago
The 15% polling threshold for debates is just silly. I don't love libertarianism (even though I mostly agree on matters like drugs, mass surveillance, and some other civil libertarian stuff) but man, 50 years of hard work deserves them at least a chance to show up on a national stage.
Hell, just give everyone a spot. You know, like in the UK elections where you have Lord Buckethead debating on the same stage as the prime minister.
1
u/L1b3rtarian 22d ago
My take is all voices should be heard and represented in some way if they are on the Presidential Ballot .. that should be enough to enter the debates period.. I dont care what party or what ideolog it is at all.
That should be a basic right for people that participate in this governments form of Democracy. If its not.. then every single election is in fact a fraud.. and a stolen election.
1
u/Mesko149 22d ago
Having several competitive parties is simply not a sustainable scenario as long as first-past-the-post voting remains the most common electoral system in the United States. If we want to challenge the current two-party oligopoly, first-past-the-post voting needs to go first.
9
u/algern0ns 23d ago
It's true that countries that support multiple parties are generally more free, but a third party candidate being elected to a position beyond a local office in the US is astronomically small - if not virtually impossible.
I'd rather cast my vote for someone who might enact tangible change instead of making a statement that doesn't matter to anyone, especially when things like people's lives are hanging in the balance.
2
u/Zanctmao 23d ago
What do you mean “more free”?
1
u/algern0ns 23d ago
While a multiparty system alone does not ensure democracy (look at Russia, for an example), it can go a long way in bettering democracy when government is balanced and well structured. In the US, I think a major part of this would be abolishing the electoral college.
It alleviates black and white political views that lead to divisiveness and encourages competition between parties that would ultimately benefit voters because politicians could be held accountable more easily when they don't make good on their promises. Fewer people would feel like they have to mindlessly check the box in accordance to who has a D or R next their name and I'm inclined to believe that this alone would restore a lot of faith in our democracy in general - and belief in democracy is at least half the battle these days.
-3
2
u/ubermence 22d ago
This country has had 2 parties since its inception. It’s essentially a guaranteed outcome thanks to our voting system. If you want to blame anyone blame the founders
2
u/L1b3rtarian 22d ago
Its Representative Democracy and not Actually Democracy.. and there where a few times we had a few parties.
Fact is we have more than just 2 parties and the other two have gamed the system to the point where they have zero voice...
Cant even get into the Presidential Debates... that right there is a perfectly good example as to how some can feel that the US Government is a Tyrant and deal with it as such..
3
u/ubermence 22d ago
We have had more than 2 parties sure, and upon realizing that it was incredibly self defeating they promptly collapsed.
Can’t even get into the presidential debates
This is one of my biggest issue with the current third parties. All they ever care about is running completely unwinnable vanity campaigns for president. If they actually tried to build up at the local level first maybe I’d have more respect, but it really just seems like they care the most about the exposure of being on top of the ticket
1
u/L1b3rtarian 22d ago
Your missing the point. Whatever they "are" if the are on the Ballot and can be voted for. They should have equal opportunity, especially when it comes to something as simple as giving them a stage to debate.
Its not that complicated to put another podium on stage and extend the debates to adequately give time for everyone to give answers.. even if there needs to be 5-6 debates.....
The quality, disposition, message, and how the candidate stacks up is irrelevant.
If they are on the ballot and cant debate.. the election is automatically fraudulent right out of the gate.. Period...
All people should have a voice, not just Republicans and Democrats...
1
u/ubermence 22d ago
the election is automatically fraudulent right out of the gate
That’s a pretty serious charge, can you show me in the constitution where it says that you have to be allowed to join a televised debate
1
u/L1b3rtarian 21d ago
Why not just say:
I am a democrat/republican and I do not want your voice or opinion involved in our elections.
Instead of trying to debate and reason about something that is so very obviously a problem, at least to people other than you.
1
u/ubermence 21d ago
All I did was point out that there is no mechanism in the constitution that mandates private media companies to allow parties that routinely receive less than 1% of the vote into their private debates. Are you arguing that the government should come in and tell private companies how to operate?
1
u/L1b3rtarian 21d ago
CMON.. say it.. believe me when you start being honest with yourself and truthful with reddit.... and not so worried about the socialist scoring system... or zit faced teenagers and parents basement dwellers.. its actually a freeing sort of way to be.
Even if you are a statist and like corrupted elections because they are in your favor.. I promise not to downvote you... cuz i dont give a F about karma.
1
u/ubermence 21d ago
I’m just genuinely curious how as a libertarian you want the government to step in and regulate private industries?
→ More replies
-24
u/discourse_friendly 23d ago
Hot take, gerrymandering gets a bad rap. People see the example with a 4 X 4 square where 8 are blue and 8 are red and there's 3 red districts and 1 blue and think "OMFG THAT'S TERRIBLE"
Or they see crazy shapes on maps and think "OMFG Tha's terrible!"
When in reality, often, you get districts of like minded voters lumped together.
Wow there's a district where 80-90% of the voters all want the same thing, and they vote in someone who represents exactly what they want. "omfg... oh wait. that's actually good since we are in a representative democracy"
Its really only bad when you have a lot of districts that are crazy shapes and 55-60% of like minded voters.
Which does happen, but happens significantly less than people complain about it happening.
31
u/Commotion 23d ago
Cramming a bunch of like-minded voters into one district is called "packing," and it can be used to reduce the number of seats those voters get. If they're all artfully crammed into the same district they get one representative, even if there are enough of them to win a majority in two districts if the lines were drawn differently. This stuff happens all the time, and it's not a good thing.
2
u/kwantsu-dudes 22d ago
It's better at the local level with a smaller portion being denied representation, potentially worse at the federal level through a US Representative if they would be able to get broader representation otherwise.
-5
u/MeowTheMixer 22d ago
Cramming like minded voters into the same geographical area is a result of like minded people wanting to socialize with like minded people.
It's why at the county level Dane County voted 75% Biden and Milwaukee voted 69% Biden. That's not even a district, just counties. These are also the two most populated counties in the state.
To try and break those up to have an even split, is just as much gerrymandering.
-2
u/discourse_friendly 23d ago
If it happens on both sides in the same state, I think its a good thing.
20
u/Falcon4242 23d ago
I agree with you that sometimes people look at weirdly shaped but legitimate districts and make unjust accusations of gerrymandering, but gerrymandering is a huge problem in many states. It's funny that you mention 80-90% of like minded voters in a district being a good thing, because that's actually a common tactic in gerrymandering. Pack as many voters of the opposite party into as few districts as possible so that all the other districts have less opposition voters. You may get two districts 90% in opposition to you, but the result may be 4 other districts with 60% favor for your party, even if the parties have equal support state wide.
-2
u/discourse_friendly 23d ago
I guess we have to look at the entire picture to know if its a good or bad thing. But you raise a good point. If there's one purple district that's 90%, and 3 yellows that are 51% its likely a bad thing.
but if each district is 90% then its back to a good thing. :)8
u/Interrophish 23d ago
Wow there's a district where 80-90% of the voters all want the same thing, and they vote in someone who represents exactly what they want. "omfg... oh wait. that's actually good since we are in a representative democracy"
yes that's a good thing, but those voters getting less representation at the higher levels of government as a result is a bad thing. I'd rather ban district packing than appreciate the upside of likeminded districts. Now, if we had a system of government that allowed us to have both benefits, that'd be nice. But we don't.
26
u/ballmermurland 23d ago
This isn’t a hit take but a really bad take. Wisconsin’s gerrymander has given the GOP control of the Assembly all decade despiteWI being a blue state for most of it.
-9
u/PabstyTheClown 22d ago
Outside of Madison, Milwaukee and then Douglas, Ashland and Bayfield counties, WI is not a blue state.
9
u/smallestklein 22d ago
Those areas are the most populous though. I wouldn't go so far as to call Wisconsin a blue state, but it is definitely a blue-leaning state overall.
-3
2
u/DrunkenAsparagus 22d ago
There are variety of competing objectives when redistricting, and I think we should have a healthy debate over what those objectives should be. Still, I think we should be able to agree that at bare minimum letting politicians draw their own districts is unlikely to produce any of results that we claim to care about. There are a variety of competing objectives that I care about, but I fail to see how the self-interest of politicians should be one of them.
→ More replies
•
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.