"It’s completely obvious that you can’t have unilateral disarmament." Yes, so Obama and Democratic leaders are not even "kind of" hypocritical here. It's perfectly consistent to (a) wish for different rules and to even push for different rules and to even push for different rules on ethical grounds on the one hand while (b) playing by the rules you have in the meantime, and playing them just as ruthlessly as the other fella. In fact, pulling back on (b) is not only political malpractice but it undermines (a) by unfairly allowing your numbers to be diminished. In other words, you have to gerrymander in order to get even a chance of gerrymandering reform.
One analogy I like: Suppose you don't like the designated hitter rule and, in a perfect world by your lights, pitchers would have to bat or be replaced in the lineup. Let's say that you're in the business and have been outspoken about that view. Let's further say that you become the manager of an American League team. It wouldn't be even "kind of" hypocritical for you to use the DH rule as the other team does. Indeed, it would be absolutely insane for you to have your pitcher bat on principle.
You might say in response that the DH rule has zero ethical aspect, whereas gerrymandering does. It's actually wrong, you might say, for politicians to pick their voters rather than the other way around. I actually agree. But unilateral disarmament *compounds* that injustice by, in essence, requiring that the baddies win. In that case, you're just a stupid chump who's made the world worse. You haven't gotten rid of gerrymandering. You've just made it so one side profits by it.
To add to this - the unilateral disarmament model assumes two sides, Dems and the GOP, each trying to gain seats, but ignores the third side - the voters!
For example, here in California, the Dems recently got rid of the independent commission the voters set up (against the Dems' wishes!)
The Dems benefit, the GOP loses out, but who really suffers? The voters, who now have less fair districts. It's a mistake to conflate the voters with one of the two parties - they are a third group, with different interests than either party.
Another good example is the "jungle primary" that California set up a while back. Both the Dems and the GOP came out against it, because it takes power away from the parties. The voters supported it, and it won!
I don't agree at all. I think it is completely hypocritical for the Dems to ignore the voters, ignore fairness, and try to overturn independent commissions. It is not only unethical, but bad politics that will end up costing them votes.
What you're missing here, I think, is that voters hate political parties and don't want them to have more power.
It may have started with Texas in 2003, but things really went into high gear following REDMAP in 2010. It seemed like Democrats were fine with that status quo until 2025/26. Republicans seemed to have pushed their luck too far, and probably would have had a great shot of doing a 2010 repeat in 2030 otherwise.
I happen to live in VA-02, and I don't think our representative is doing a great job at either representing the Shore or the more-moderate Virginia Beach area, other than advocating for increased spending on shipbuilding. I thought she might take a stand on the OBB, realizing that it is pumping our deficit to insanely high levels, but alas, no.
I'm not sure what the point of having competitive districts is if those elected from those competitive districts just end up toeing the party line. Sure, Kiggans happens to wear the R badge, but she was preceded by Luria who wore the D badge just as ferociously. They both seemed to win more on their own party enthusiasm than they did on winning moderates.
"And Kyle Kondick calculates that the map that will be contested in November is almost perfectly fair."
You should probably clarify that Kondick is referring to the national map as being fair, not Virginia. Because there's not really any way to say that Virginia's map is fair. It's a state where 52% of the population voted for Democrats but will have 92% Democrat representation in the House. 40% difference is not the biggest gap, but all the states with bigger gaps (NH, NM, ME, RI, CT, IA) are small population states with only a few seats (2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 4) compared to Virginia's 11. The next most lopsided state with more than 5 seats is MA with 9 seats and also a ~40% difference, then IL with ~30% difference and 17 seats. One might also note that VA, MA, and IL are all very blue states. The TX redistricting will cause a difference of about 25% by comparison, slightly below the difference in CA. By this measure, the Democrats are much more aggressive with their gerrymandering than the GOP.
This is kind of an odd take. It ignores a couple important points.
First, the Democrats have made a big show of democracy and fairness in voting being important to them. It's part of their branding. It's part of their advantage. They win voters by standing up to "consitutional hardball." They completely negate this advantage by turning around and engaging in the same skullduggery that they campaign against. They come off as more hypocritical than the GOP does for doing the same thing.
Second, they are doing something far different - and far worse - than what the GOP is doing, by not just gerrymandering, but by also taking districting away from independent commissions.
In my home state of California, the voters set up an independent commission to prevent gerrymandering. It's important to note that this wasn't something the Democratic party wanted - in fact, the party campaigned against it. But the voters supported it, and it passed.
Then, the Democrats didn't just try to gerrymander - they specifically took power away from an independent commission in order to do so! That's far worse than what the GOP did.
What the Dems did is not only unethical, because gerrymandering is unethical, but it's bad politics, because they are losing the voters they tried to win through arguing for voting rights and democracy! It goes against their brand and their earlier message. It was a mistake, on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.
Also, I wanted to comment on the "unilateral disarmament" model. This model assumes two sides, Dems and the GOP, each trying to gain seats at the other's expense. It's inaccurate, because it ignores the third side - the voters!
For example, here in California, the Dems recently got rid of the independent commission the voters set up (against the Dems' wishes!)
The Dems benefit, the GOP loses out, but who really suffers? The voters, who now have less fair districts. It's a mistake to conflate the voters with one of the two parties - they are a third group, with different interests than either party.
Another good example is the "jungle primary" that California set up a while back. Both the Dems and the GOP came out against it, because it takes power away from the parties. The voters supported it, and it won!
I also just wanted to briefly respond to your Iran comment - the Iran war was absolutely necessary, and Trump gains a lot by it. First, it should be clear to anyone in the future that other presidents failed to act when it was necessary, but Trump did the hard but necessary thing. To the extent Trump cares about his legacy and being seen as having the balls to do what no one else could - which is very much part of his identity - this is a win for him.
From a more practical point, the whole world is in danger from Iran's imminent nukes that Obama allowed them to create. In particular, Jews are, and of course Trump's beloved daughter is Jewish.
Iran has repeatedly made comments about wanting to kill all the Jews, destroy Israel, and destroy America. To the extent that Trump wants to protect the country, his daughter, and Jews in general, he benefits from destroying Iran's capability to kill Jews.
There is really no simple fix to gerrymandering. Citizen redistricting might be better than a state legislature, but maybe not. The problem originates from the UK's Westminster plans from centuries ago. Single member districts, with the candidate getting the most wins (plurality winner).
In combination with the US two party system, which is a failure, is undemocratic, and is the source of many of the current political extremes, we have leaders of both parties who put party about everything.
No solution to selecting better federal and state legislators is perfect. But the US continues in many states with closed primaries. And a fear by both major parties that ranked choice voting will take away power from the political bosses who run both parties. RCV and open primaries are steps forward but the end of single member legislative races needs to change.
The real powerful force for change is the move by many voters away from either major party. In many states, unaffiliated or independent voters have a larger percentage than either party. And these are the voters who are not sheep, who are not voting like zombies for the political choice of party leaders and zealots. The population of unaffiliated voters is growing. What political group will take advantage of this transition.
If Democratic leaders invite unaffiliated voters into the Democratic primary tent with ranked choice voting, the candidate moving forward to November general election will likely tilt toward many but not all Democratic policies and perspectives. And then more Democrats will win in November.
But these Democrats will not always be extreme progressives. So the Democratic leaders would rather lose with an extremist than win with a moderate.
Too often, pollsters act as if there are only two possible political groups: Dems and Maggots. They should be looking to determine the views of unaffiliated voters in the 10-15 key states. National polls dilute the significance of polls and the likely outcome of political contests.
"It’s completely obvious that you can’t have unilateral disarmament." Yes, so Obama and Democratic leaders are not even "kind of" hypocritical here. It's perfectly consistent to (a) wish for different rules and to even push for different rules and to even push for different rules on ethical grounds on the one hand while (b) playing by the rules you have in the meantime, and playing them just as ruthlessly as the other fella. In fact, pulling back on (b) is not only political malpractice but it undermines (a) by unfairly allowing your numbers to be diminished. In other words, you have to gerrymander in order to get even a chance of gerrymandering reform.
One analogy I like: Suppose you don't like the designated hitter rule and, in a perfect world by your lights, pitchers would have to bat or be replaced in the lineup. Let's say that you're in the business and have been outspoken about that view. Let's further say that you become the manager of an American League team. It wouldn't be even "kind of" hypocritical for you to use the DH rule as the other team does. Indeed, it would be absolutely insane for you to have your pitcher bat on principle.
You might say in response that the DH rule has zero ethical aspect, whereas gerrymandering does. It's actually wrong, you might say, for politicians to pick their voters rather than the other way around. I actually agree. But unilateral disarmament *compounds* that injustice by, in essence, requiring that the baddies win. In that case, you're just a stupid chump who's made the world worse. You haven't gotten rid of gerrymandering. You've just made it so one side profits by it.
To add to this - the unilateral disarmament model assumes two sides, Dems and the GOP, each trying to gain seats, but ignores the third side - the voters!
For example, here in California, the Dems recently got rid of the independent commission the voters set up (against the Dems' wishes!)
The Dems benefit, the GOP loses out, but who really suffers? The voters, who now have less fair districts. It's a mistake to conflate the voters with one of the two parties - they are a third group, with different interests than either party.
Another good example is the "jungle primary" that California set up a while back. Both the Dems and the GOP came out against it, because it takes power away from the parties. The voters supported it, and it won!
I don't agree at all. I think it is completely hypocritical for the Dems to ignore the voters, ignore fairness, and try to overturn independent commissions. It is not only unethical, but bad politics that will end up costing them votes.
What you're missing here, I think, is that voters hate political parties and don't want them to have more power.
It may have started with Texas in 2003, but things really went into high gear following REDMAP in 2010. It seemed like Democrats were fine with that status quo until 2025/26. Republicans seemed to have pushed their luck too far, and probably would have had a great shot of doing a 2010 repeat in 2030 otherwise.
I happen to live in VA-02, and I don't think our representative is doing a great job at either representing the Shore or the more-moderate Virginia Beach area, other than advocating for increased spending on shipbuilding. I thought she might take a stand on the OBB, realizing that it is pumping our deficit to insanely high levels, but alas, no.
I'm not sure what the point of having competitive districts is if those elected from those competitive districts just end up toeing the party line. Sure, Kiggans happens to wear the R badge, but she was preceded by Luria who wore the D badge just as ferociously. They both seemed to win more on their own party enthusiasm than they did on winning moderates.
As I’ve said many times before Nate- come and visit Australia for a solution- this time for non-partisan redistricting.
"And Kyle Kondick calculates that the map that will be contested in November is almost perfectly fair."
You should probably clarify that Kondick is referring to the national map as being fair, not Virginia. Because there's not really any way to say that Virginia's map is fair. It's a state where 52% of the population voted for Democrats but will have 92% Democrat representation in the House. 40% difference is not the biggest gap, but all the states with bigger gaps (NH, NM, ME, RI, CT, IA) are small population states with only a few seats (2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 4) compared to Virginia's 11. The next most lopsided state with more than 5 seats is MA with 9 seats and also a ~40% difference, then IL with ~30% difference and 17 seats. One might also note that VA, MA, and IL are all very blue states. The TX redistricting will cause a difference of about 25% by comparison, slightly below the difference in CA. By this measure, the Democrats are much more aggressive with their gerrymandering than the GOP.
This is kind of an odd take. It ignores a couple important points.
First, the Democrats have made a big show of democracy and fairness in voting being important to them. It's part of their branding. It's part of their advantage. They win voters by standing up to "consitutional hardball." They completely negate this advantage by turning around and engaging in the same skullduggery that they campaign against. They come off as more hypocritical than the GOP does for doing the same thing.
Second, they are doing something far different - and far worse - than what the GOP is doing, by not just gerrymandering, but by also taking districting away from independent commissions.
In my home state of California, the voters set up an independent commission to prevent gerrymandering. It's important to note that this wasn't something the Democratic party wanted - in fact, the party campaigned against it. But the voters supported it, and it passed.
Then, the Democrats didn't just try to gerrymander - they specifically took power away from an independent commission in order to do so! That's far worse than what the GOP did.
What the Dems did is not only unethical, because gerrymandering is unethical, but it's bad politics, because they are losing the voters they tried to win through arguing for voting rights and democracy! It goes against their brand and their earlier message. It was a mistake, on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.
Really strong piece, Nate.
Also, I wanted to comment on the "unilateral disarmament" model. This model assumes two sides, Dems and the GOP, each trying to gain seats at the other's expense. It's inaccurate, because it ignores the third side - the voters!
For example, here in California, the Dems recently got rid of the independent commission the voters set up (against the Dems' wishes!)
The Dems benefit, the GOP loses out, but who really suffers? The voters, who now have less fair districts. It's a mistake to conflate the voters with one of the two parties - they are a third group, with different interests than either party.
Another good example is the "jungle primary" that California set up a while back. Both the Dems and the GOP came out against it, because it takes power away from the parties. The voters supported it, and it won!
I also just wanted to briefly respond to your Iran comment - the Iran war was absolutely necessary, and Trump gains a lot by it. First, it should be clear to anyone in the future that other presidents failed to act when it was necessary, but Trump did the hard but necessary thing. To the extent Trump cares about his legacy and being seen as having the balls to do what no one else could - which is very much part of his identity - this is a win for him.
From a more practical point, the whole world is in danger from Iran's imminent nukes that Obama allowed them to create. In particular, Jews are, and of course Trump's beloved daughter is Jewish.
Iran has repeatedly made comments about wanting to kill all the Jews, destroy Israel, and destroy America. To the extent that Trump wants to protect the country, his daughter, and Jews in general, he benefits from destroying Iran's capability to kill Jews.
"Democratic voters are pretty rational."
That statement speaks for itself
There is really no simple fix to gerrymandering. Citizen redistricting might be better than a state legislature, but maybe not. The problem originates from the UK's Westminster plans from centuries ago. Single member districts, with the candidate getting the most wins (plurality winner).
In combination with the US two party system, which is a failure, is undemocratic, and is the source of many of the current political extremes, we have leaders of both parties who put party about everything.
No solution to selecting better federal and state legislators is perfect. But the US continues in many states with closed primaries. And a fear by both major parties that ranked choice voting will take away power from the political bosses who run both parties. RCV and open primaries are steps forward but the end of single member legislative races needs to change.
The real powerful force for change is the move by many voters away from either major party. In many states, unaffiliated or independent voters have a larger percentage than either party. And these are the voters who are not sheep, who are not voting like zombies for the political choice of party leaders and zealots. The population of unaffiliated voters is growing. What political group will take advantage of this transition.
If Democratic leaders invite unaffiliated voters into the Democratic primary tent with ranked choice voting, the candidate moving forward to November general election will likely tilt toward many but not all Democratic policies and perspectives. And then more Democrats will win in November.
But these Democrats will not always be extreme progressives. So the Democratic leaders would rather lose with an extremist than win with a moderate.
Too often, pollsters act as if there are only two possible political groups: Dems and Maggots. They should be looking to determine the views of unaffiliated voters in the 10-15 key states. National polls dilute the significance of polls and the likely outcome of political contests.
There is a simple fix. It's called multi-member districts. It solves all the problems.