Hopefully you know that I already know all that. How is any of that relevant to criticism of gerrymandering? Was gerrymandering intended by Founders as check on majority?
-
-
Is that just a fancy way to say that people don't really believe that it's an immoral/unjust system? ;)
-
No. And you know that.
-
I can't tell if you're assuming the left argues in bad faith or if it's you who is arguing in bad faith. Surely you know one can see X & Y as unjust but not want to change X unless it includes changing Y.
-
If you lived in California, and this were up for a vote, how would you vote?
-
If the whole system won't be fixed to be more just for everyone, then "fixing" CA (or TX) alone only makes the overall system LESS just. So I vote no until/unless we're getting more overall justice.
-
Got it. So, if you had a chance to enfranchise your otherwise-disenfranchised neighbors, you wouldn't do so, because the overall political results would be unfavorable for you. I understand the pragmatism of the position.
-
Again, either you assume I'm arguing in bad faith or you are arguing in bad faith. (Or maybe it's cynicism instead of bad faith.) Either way, it's yuck.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
My argument—and Sheldon’s, I think—isn’t that people in any state are inclined to apportion their EC votes. People are rarely inclined to do things that hurt them politically. I’m merely implying that they ~should~ because it’s better than status quo (and popular vote).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.