Bad news: fixing all this requires a broad coalition whose key aim is to restore balance, equity and accountability to the democratic process and winning elections anyway under conditions that disenfranchise voters. Good news: that’s probably the only way a fix will take, anyway.https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1144249140479713280 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zeynep
Any coalition powerful enough to overturn gerrymandering will do what all such powers have done before—gerrymander to their own advantage. The party in favor of reform now does the same thing where they have the upper hand. It's politics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @librarythingtim
Not if you make it a different kind of coalition. That’s the point, it would be a different axis of organizing/politics. It wouldn’t have a clear replication model like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
The comparandum would, I think, be the term-limit movement of the 90s. But that largely failed, and it subsisted on an apartisan impulse that's vanished. As it is now, "election reform" can't escape being a Democratic project, and so a matter of narrow margins, not consensus.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Things have moved much further along now though, and there may well be a better shot at a small d consensus within the regular partisan voting. Though of course there’s no way to avoid the fact that it can only happen in one political party at the moment. That’s the tricky part.
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.