We do have a lot of problems and each of these problems deserve attention and care to in order to stop. Many of the problems are a huge deal as well.
What I am bringing attention to is one of the problems that has gradually led to these other problems arising. It is also a problem that requires mutual effort from individuals in 48 states other than my own.
Our voting system has been a main proponent of what has enabled the echo chamber media environment we have and it is partially what has caused politicians to divide the country. Also, we do not a voting system in all 50 states that enables other political parties to appear as real alternatives.
We should concern ourselves with multiple problems concurrently as we do not need to just focus on only one problem to fix. Yes, we should protest and bring attention to other issues, but at the same time we can also try to grassroots organize to change the voting system to help prevent things from getting worse or from happening again in the future.
I would even encourage you, if you are not from the US, to push for alternative voting systems like I brought up to prevent similar issues from appearing in your country someday. Specifically I would advocate for ranked robin, STAR, or score over ranked choice as there are some unlikely scenarios where ranked choice can be as bad as FPTP.
If we had a different voting system, we very well might not have been in this situation. As other people that normally avoid voting at all, because they hate the two party system, may have come out to vote. Hell, they could have even voted their favorite choice at their first option, but put a second choice as a backup if their favorite candidate did not win.
If people really want faster change, they should move from the deepest red and deepest blue states to more purple states. At least then their votes will have an immediate impact on shifting the power balance away from the coin flip where land has more power than people. They should look at voting maps ahead of time so their not necessarily gerrymandered out of a vote when they move as well.
If people really want faster change politically, then they should move from the deepest red and deepest blue states to more purple states.
How does that remove them from the media system and the economic incentives that shape their politics? How does that impede state legislatures that can pack and crack districts in a matter of weeks, after residents have spent decades redistributing themselves?
They should look at voting maps ahead of time before they move as well
Voting maps are redrawn on a whim. What would moving halfway across Texas change when we have districts that snake from Houston to San Antonio and Austin to Dallas?
It gives more weight to their vote. It doesn’t change their situation by itself inherently, but if enough people make these types of moves it could shift the political landscape of the country.
Functionally, a lot of legislation is held back by not having enough votes in both the House and Senate, more so the Senate than the House. Personally, I would want to see the House and Senate rebalanced in the future to be a minimum of five representatives and senators per state, but then scaled up based on population. Assuming we have also changed the voting system in each state to be more representative through ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting then each state will do a much better job of actually reflecting the population’s voting preferences.
Functionally, we should build a media system that people want to engage in. Changing the voting system is a core part of changing the media system as well. As you risk alienating potential voters if you demonize the other side, this would at the very least move politics aware from hyper-partisanship.
To change the media ecosystem, we need the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to social media. This can happen to some extent on the state level, but we functionally need it on the federal level to see a lasting impact. Democrats/progressives need a majority of seats in the House and Senate to even attempt to pass something like the Fairness Doctrine. Ideally, you would want a 3-5 seat majority in the Senate and at least 10 seat majority in the House to pass a majority of the legislation you want to pass. You need a 10 seat majority in the Senate if you want your legislation to be filibuster proofed.
Economic incentives reward more left leaning politics imo. Left leaning politics is good for the people and good for businesses as well in the long run.
It depends on the state if we’re talking about legislatures that have a big enough majority that they can change the district maps quickly enough to disenfranchise voters. Those new maps usually need to be approved by the courts though. If the courts deem the new maps are gerrymandered, they can at least force the election to be off the old map used in the previous election. I would recommend doing research ahead of time if your goal is to make a voter impact. Encouraging others in your community to turn out to vote can make a difference as well.
Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections. While maps can be redrawn, those maps need to be approved by the courts to be able to be used. The reason I mention researching ahead of time is because you will be a new arrival in the state, the legislature doesn’t have a record necessarily of how you personally will vote. Even if they do, then you could be in a sea of voters from other political parties. Your vote can make a difference still on the city level, school board elections level, governor level, and the federal level. The state level is the most likely to be affected by gerrymandering, but you can try to not group to a left leaning area that’s easier for legislators to gerrymander out.
Functionally, moving to a purple state makes a notable difference. The reason the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered so much was because of the courts confirming potentially gerrymandered maps. If enough people move to purple states that they shifted blue, then it could impact Federal elections which could potentially impose legislation against gerrymandering at a federal level. They could even potentially withhold federal funding, in some instances, should states refuse to use non-gerrymandered maps.
Firstly, I think you’re talking about the Wisconsin SC. Secondly, that remains to be seen. Thirdly, Wisconsin’s Senators illustrate the problem with this hypothesis - they seem capable of electing both Republican and Democrat Senators (and Governors) depending on the winds of the political moment.
Moving to Wisconsin won’t tilt the state blue because you’ll be exposed to all the same socio-economic forces everyone else in Wisconsin is enduring.
Let’s not be reductionists.
We do have a lot of problems and each of these problems deserve attention and care to in order to stop. Many of the problems are a huge deal as well.
What I am bringing attention to is one of the problems that has gradually led to these other problems arising. It is also a problem that requires mutual effort from individuals in 48 states other than my own.
Our voting system has been a main proponent of what has enabled the echo chamber media environment we have and it is partially what has caused politicians to divide the country. Also, we do not a voting system in all 50 states that enables other political parties to appear as real alternatives.
We should concern ourselves with multiple problems concurrently as we do not need to just focus on only one problem to fix. Yes, we should protest and bring attention to other issues, but at the same time we can also try to grassroots organize to change the voting system to help prevent things from getting worse or from happening again in the future.
I would even encourage you, if you are not from the US, to push for alternative voting systems like I brought up to prevent similar issues from appearing in your country someday. Specifically I would advocate for ranked robin, STAR, or score over ranked choice as there are some unlikely scenarios where ranked choice can be as bad as FPTP.
If we had a different voting system, we very well might not have been in this situation. As other people that normally avoid voting at all, because they hate the two party system, may have come out to vote. Hell, they could have even voted their favorite choice at their first option, but put a second choice as a backup if their favorite candidate did not win.
If people really want faster change, they should move from the deepest red and deepest blue states to more purple states. At least then their votes will have an immediate impact on shifting the power balance away from the coin flip where land has more power than people. They should look at voting maps ahead of time so their not necessarily gerrymandered out of a vote when they move as well.
How does that remove them from the media system and the economic incentives that shape their politics? How does that impede state legislatures that can pack and crack districts in a matter of weeks, after residents have spent decades redistributing themselves?
Voting maps are redrawn on a whim. What would moving halfway across Texas change when we have districts that snake from Houston to San Antonio and Austin to Dallas?
It gives more weight to their vote. It doesn’t change their situation by itself inherently, but if enough people make these types of moves it could shift the political landscape of the country.
Functionally, a lot of legislation is held back by not having enough votes in both the House and Senate, more so the Senate than the House. Personally, I would want to see the House and Senate rebalanced in the future to be a minimum of five representatives and senators per state, but then scaled up based on population. Assuming we have also changed the voting system in each state to be more representative through ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting then each state will do a much better job of actually reflecting the population’s voting preferences.
Functionally, we should build a media system that people want to engage in. Changing the voting system is a core part of changing the media system as well. As you risk alienating potential voters if you demonize the other side, this would at the very least move politics aware from hyper-partisanship.
To change the media ecosystem, we need the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to social media. This can happen to some extent on the state level, but we functionally need it on the federal level to see a lasting impact. Democrats/progressives need a majority of seats in the House and Senate to even attempt to pass something like the Fairness Doctrine. Ideally, you would want a 3-5 seat majority in the Senate and at least 10 seat majority in the House to pass a majority of the legislation you want to pass. You need a 10 seat majority in the Senate if you want your legislation to be filibuster proofed.
Economic incentives reward more left leaning politics imo. Left leaning politics is good for the people and good for businesses as well in the long run.
It depends on the state if we’re talking about legislatures that have a big enough majority that they can change the district maps quickly enough to disenfranchise voters. Those new maps usually need to be approved by the courts though. If the courts deem the new maps are gerrymandered, they can at least force the election to be off the old map used in the previous election. I would recommend doing research ahead of time if your goal is to make a voter impact. Encouraging others in your community to turn out to vote can make a difference as well.
Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections. While maps can be redrawn, those maps need to be approved by the courts to be able to be used. The reason I mention researching ahead of time is because you will be a new arrival in the state, the legislature doesn’t have a record necessarily of how you personally will vote. Even if they do, then you could be in a sea of voters from other political parties. Your vote can make a difference still on the city level, school board elections level, governor level, and the federal level. The state level is the most likely to be affected by gerrymandering, but you can try to not group to a left leaning area that’s easier for legislators to gerrymander out.
Not when enfranchisement is dictated by the entrenched government.
Functionally, moving to a purple state makes a notable difference. The reason the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered so much was because of the courts confirming potentially gerrymandered maps. If enough people move to purple states that they shifted blue, then it could impact Federal elections which could potentially impose legislation against gerrymandering at a federal level. They could even potentially withhold federal funding, in some instances, should states refuse to use non-gerrymandered maps.
Firstly, I think you’re talking about the Wisconsin SC. Secondly, that remains to be seen. Thirdly, Wisconsin’s Senators illustrate the problem with this hypothesis - they seem capable of electing both Republican and Democrat Senators (and Governors) depending on the winds of the political moment.
Moving to Wisconsin won’t tilt the state blue because you’ll be exposed to all the same socio-economic forces everyone else in Wisconsin is enduring.