Gerrymandering, explained | USA TODAY
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- For centuries, politicians have used maps to rig elections. Here’s what gerrymandering is and what it means for voters.
RELATED: House committee approves gun-control bills in wake of mass shootings | USA TODAY bit.ly/3aGCPZF
» Subscribe to USA TODAY: bit.ly/1xa3XAh
» Watch more on this and other topics from USA TODAY: bit.ly/3HJCErF
» USA TODAY delivers current local and national news, sports, entertainment, finance, technology, and more through award-winning journalism, photos, videos and VR.
#justthefaqs #gerrymandering #elections
No, district line drawing is NOT required by the Constitution. The Constitution does not ever mention Congressional Districts, at all!
@@GrayGaming-uv9md That's only because of the Uniform Congressional District Act requiring states to have districts.
435 is from 1929 the reapportionment act of 1929. She was referring to the Supreme Court case against the preclearance provision. The Department of Justice is the relevant part of the cabinet.
@nickthescienceguy7911 We agree. Districting per se, as opposed to states having at-large Reps, is a statutory rqmt, not a constitutional rqmt. It could be repealed without amending the Constitution.
Bro what is up with the supreme court recently. They keep passing everything down to the states.
Most states have republican-controlled legislature, so getting as much as possible onto the state level is a key task for Republicans in order to keep messing with power. And Trump just so happpened to install three of his puppets at the Supreme Court.
Because the republicans want to take away rights
part of the plan since Nixon, especially after the FDR-LBJ era judges retire
@@user-mt5uu4pz4j
Yeah, that’s actually in the Bill Of Rights. It’s the 10th Amendment. It’s really the way the Republic should operate.
@@papayayaya5049
Actually it was part of the plan since 1789.
Clearly stated in the 10th amendment
I've been looking through these videos on gerrymandering hoping to find one that would be adequately illuminating for my mother. I've tried explaining what I understood about gerrymandering to my mother - how it could be a tool to create "safe" seats for one party or the other - but she still hasn't gotten it. But watching them so far, I've learned a few new things myself.
Here is a "mini essay" that I typed up responding to another comment, you could try using an example such as this to try and explain to her. I already did the math in this example so it would be easy to just steal the numbers and the specific example.
Main Point: Gerrymandering is artificially determining what type of voters get put into each voting group in order to favor one particular party, this is done by making as many voting districts are a close but still definitively won district for a particular party because it uses the least amount of votes to win a particular area; there is no benefit to having 100% of a voting district voting for the same candidate, instead you could split 40% of those voters into a different district and add the same number of voters who vote for the other party into the district and it will be a 60-40 victory and those other 40% of the original voters can be used to win another district.
I'll give an example that might help:
Lets say you have 10 different positions that are up for election and you have 100 voters, 60 side with Party A and 40 side with Party B. According to basic logic, of those 10 positions up for election, 6 should be won by Party A and 4 should be won by Party B, that would be a fair and even split that would allow for the views of those 100 voters to be fairly represented among the elected group, this type of sampling is called proportional sampling. However, this is not how the election process in the US works. The US uses what is called district based sampling which divides the voters into groups based on where they live.
In our example, the voters would be split into 10 districts. If the voters are randomly spread out with no tendency to live near other voters with the same party, then the average group would contain 6 voters from Party A and 4 voters from Party B, which would give the results of all 10 positions going to Party A on average, the probability of Party B getting a seat would be high, but each seat they gained would greatly reduce the probability of gaining another seat with the maximum possible seats they could gain being 6 (having 6 Party B voters in 6 different districts and the remaining 4 Party B people not mattering). It should be noted that just because the most likely outcome is Party A gaining all 10 seats does not mean that the chance is above 50%, I am too lazy to do the actual math but if I guesstimate with the probability curve being linear (I don't think it would be so these numbers will actually seem more favorable towards Party B then it would be), then there would be a 25% chance of Party A gaining all 10 seats. However, the average number of seats would be 8 for Party A and 2 for Party B which is skewed in favor of Party A when looking at things proportionally. Remember that because of the estimates that I use these percentages are skewed in favor of Party B which means that Party A would actually be more dominant in reality.
However, in reality voters tend to live near voters of the same party, which means that you are much more likely to see distributions such as this:
district 1: (9A 1B), district 2: (8A 2B), district 3: (8A 2B), district 4: (3A 7B), district 5: (2A 8B),
district 6: (6A 4B), district 7: (6A 4B), district 8: (7A 3B), district 9: (2A 8B), district 10: (9A 1B).
I just made this set up and it gives 7 seats to Party A and 3 to Party B, in general I think (not 100% sure) that this system of voting slightly favors the majority, but I'm not completely sure.
The way that gerrymandering really works is that it creates a lot of tight races. Let's take each of the groups from the previous example and then try to optimize them for Party B. In this example we will say that the districts make up a big line so that district 1 is next to district 2, district 2 is next to 1 and 3, etc. This means that if Party B is able to successfully gerrymander they can move a vote from a district to either district adjacent to it in exchange for a vote of the other party (This is representative of shifting the border of a district to take some land from its neighbor that it wants and giving away some land that it doesn't want). Basically, district 1 can exchange their "B" vote for one of district 2's "A" votes changing them from 1:(9A 1B) and 2:(8A 2B) to 1:(10A 0B) and 2:(7A 3B). Using this you could change the whole voting outcome to become:1: (9A 1B), 2: (10A 0B), 3: (4A 6B), 4: (4A 6B), 5: (4A 6B), 6: (4A 6B), 7: (4A 6B), 8: (10A 0B), 9: (2A 8B), 10: (9A 1B). This new distribution would give Party B 6 of the seats, leaving only 4 seats for Party A (Party B basically stole 3 seats which is 30% of the total available seats). This example is greatly idealized in that each district originally had the specific voters that it wanted to get rid of in places where it could easily trade with the other districts, but the point of the example still stands.
A great real world gerrymandering example is in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is known as a swing state that is roughly 50/50 in terms of liberal/conservative and this is observed in its governor elections and every 4 years in the national presidential election, both of which are based on popular vote in the state. However, despite this the Republican Party has a supermajority in the state congress, taking up 2/3 of the available seats which is a majority that allows for them to override vetoes from the governor which means that even if the state is majority liberal and has voted in a Democrat governor, the Republican Party can almost completely ignore him when it comes to legislature by just voting to override the veto. If the Republicans did not have a supermajority and only had a regular majority, then they would have to compromise with a Democrat governor in order to pass legislature which would give some more voice to nearly half of the population. However, because the Republicans have such a supermajority, they can ignore what is currently over half of the population in Wisconsin.
Luckily this is changing right now actually because the Wisconsin Supreme Court has just gained a liberal majority and are planning on working to de-gerrymander the state.
This was a very long reply and I honestly have no idea how communicable I made my thoughts but I hope that this can help you understand how gerrymandering can effect an election.
@BottledWater759 can voters just vote for B side in all the districts? Trying to understand myself how it all works. Biden won cuz more voters didn't want another 4yrs of trump. Not a Biden fan, but will vote for him again just to keep trump from winning. Our country depends on keeping him from leading this country in the trash.
I still think that if you move the masses in a District that is controlled by a party, by massively voting it can overcome the gerrymandering.
That can only happen with gentrification, gated communities and ghettoization. Neither extreme is good and just as bad as gerrymandering
this is why parties update their districts, when things like this happen they change the congressional districts sometimes in order to regain their seats.
Thanks. It's a distortion of facts and I'm against it.
There’s a book called “Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences” which describes some proportional methods using Approval ballots for multiwinner elections. If we used these in ~5 member districts, the problem of gerrymandering would be mostly solved as now the results would be generally proportional by party.
The only viable solution to this is having a single congressional district with all the representatives being chosen using an apportionment method
actually maybe they should make bigger districts where not only 1 member is chose, but 7 or 8. I live in Poland and it helps smaller parties to gain support
👀
I'm still confused.
Think of a college campus: they are largely democrat…say 80%. Republicans would be inclined to draw a boundary that excludes the campus to ensure the density of the college doesn’t make an otherwise Republican area Democrat.
Similarly, democrat gerrymandering looks more like a spoke and wheel. The idea is to use the inner cities to “annex” as much suburban republican areas as possible, while still keeping the seat blue.
Both parties do it
@@minnesotajack1 “both sides do it” is a very cheap cop out and also completely obfuscates the fact that it’s only republicans who oppose any federal law banning partisan and racial gerrymandering. Yes both sides do it. But we know that if both sides aren’t allowed to do it, only one party will stand to lose a lot.
@@f-86zoomer37
It’s easier for democrats to have it done to them. It’s pretty easy to be fenced in when you’re all standing in one place (large cities and colleges).
@@f-86zoomer37
Both sides have their pet projects. Voter ID is the Democrats’ sacred fight to oppose. Electioneering is an easier task for democrats simply because of their message. Electioneering is harder if you need to show an ID to vote.
Personally, I’m in favor of the purple thumb plan like they do in 2nd world countries
Thanks 🙂👍
Gerrymandering vs Ranked-Choice-Voting = Jerrymandering insta-loses.
Is it not pronounced GERRY not JERRY?
it's jerry. it's named after elbridge gerry
are you implying here that Gerry and Jerry aren't pronounced the same
Mrs Laura is legit and her method works like magic I keep on earning every single week with her new strategy
Wow I' m just shock someone mentioned expert Mrs Laura thought I' m the only one trading with her
@@frankaustin450 She helped me recover what I lost trying to trade my self
@Austin Otu I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Mrs Laura
I think she is the best broker I ever seen
I also trade with her, and earn $2,600 every week. All my family have been trading with her and making profits
@@anishaconnie1414 I still wonder how she gets her analysis, I got profit of $28, 609 with a capital of $4000 in 16 days of trading with her
A solution would be a single congressional district, there the most voted candidates will be elected.
Are there any GM for democrates?
Maryland and Illinois are the poster democrat examples of gerrymandering; most of the really gerrymandered states though are biased towards Republicans (ex. TX, OH, TN, WI, NC, SC, AL, LA)
You didn't listen it favors Republicans
As a first step it would be helpful if there are no candidates per district, but candidates per state overall. So not one per party per district, but all per state per party on one list (so in a two party system you will have to lists). All voters can pick one representative. Then at the end you count the votes PER PARTY, and divide the seats according to that %. And the top # of votes of the party can take the acquired seats.
??? explain more. what difference is that from US senate elections. my district matters. i deserve a voice. i dont want some statewide idiot representing me
@Sanyu-Tumusiime I think it's mostly about having more proportional representation. If a state sends 10 representatives and the statewide popular vote for, let's say the republicans is 70%. In the current system their is ways in which the 30% of democrat voters could be given fewer than 3 seats. In this statewide system it would just look at the popular vote and give seats based on that, which would more proportionally represent the entire population.
I do understand the issue with this is that some geographic areas may not be represented fairly however just based on parties it would be more proportional.
Sure, I got your point. I understand why you guys want to do this. Thank you for explaining it to me. Merry Christmas.
Yeah for me the issue of geography is huge especially in a large rural Texas district like the one I live in. We have our own unique issues and I feel that if we were to go for state-wide GOP/Dem proportional representation that some of the issues that are specific to my district will go on deaf ears. We would be ignored by state-wide officials since they would always win election in a proportional system without worrying so much about the constituents suffering back at home.
For example, many water issues happen out in the desert. Texas is a huge state and if we had state-wide representation, nobody would care about the water issues in rural or desert areas since they would get elected regardless of the issues back home.
Interesting idea, but I don't like it due to the geographical issues. I feel that it is better that congresspeople are held accountable for the stuff that goes on in their district area rather than the whole state.
@@nikolaslastname9480
@Sanyu-Tumusiime merry Christmas to you too. I completely understand that. I think since I live in a largish city it wouldn't affect me as much, hence my opinion but that makes a lot of sense. Possibly not a fully statewide system would be the best, but it could be that larger districts selecting multiple representatives would be better. Anyways I don't actually know what the best option is, but listening to other people is very insightful. Thank you :)
You're welcome :). Enjoy the rest of 2023!@@nikolaslastname9480
How does this effect a election tho? A voter is gonna vote one way it shouldn't matter what district they are in. Like if im a republican in a map drawn by Democrats,how does it make it any easier for them and difficult on me to cast my ballot? Does my polling location change or something? Can someone please explain this?
This is what I'm trying to figure out
As far as I understand gerrymandering, will try to give you an example. Lets pretend we have 5 districts, right? And for the sake of calculation these districts host 100 people out of which 60 are democrats and 40 are conservatives. By simple math this would result in a 3 to 2 win for the democrats if the voters are distributed equally across the districts. Now Imagine if I drew (in favor of the conservatives) one district around the homes of 40 voters that would vote for the democratic party. Given that its a win in this district for the democrats but this is where the problem starts. As I mentioned we are left with 20 people that would vote for the democratic party and 40 that would vote conservative. Now you can draw these districts to your liking but in most cases the higher count of conservatives could outweigh the democrats for example if the other districts contain 15 voters each. And every one of these districts now hosts 10 conservatives and 5 democrats. And with that, the result looks grimmer for our democrats as they would lose state control and additionally we would see 4 conservatives instead of 2 in congress. Unfortunately this is something that every party benefits off. And to keep it short: The distribution is what matters as every vote above the majority could be interpreted as a lost vote for party that won a district
Unfortunately I can only give you insights into german politics, where you are obliged to vote in the district that you are assigned to. I'm unsure whether this is the case in the US
(3 months late but hopefully you still see this) This is a lot of words, but you asked for an explanation so here it is:
Main Point: Gerrymandering is artificially determining what type of voters get put into each voting group in order to favor one particular party, this is done by making as many voting districts are a close but still definitively won district for a particular party because it uses the least amount of votes to win a particular area; there is no benefit to having 100% of a voting district voting for the same candidate, instead you could split 40% of those voters into a different district and add the same number of voters who vote for the other party into the district and it will be a 60-40 victory and those other 40% of the original voters can be used to win another district.
I'll give an example that might help:
Lets say you have 10 different positions that are up for election and you have 100 voters, 60 side with Party A and 40 side with Party B. According to basic logic, of those 10 positions up for election, 6 should be won by Party A and 4 should be won by Party B, that would be a fair and even split that would allow for the views of those 100 voters to be fairly represented among the elected group, this type of sampling is called proportional sampling. However, this is not how the election process in the US works. The US uses what is called district based sampling which divides the voters into groups based on where they live.
In our example, the voters would be split into 10 districts. If the voters are randomly spread out with no tendency to live near other voters with the same party, then the average group would contain 6 voters from Party A and 4 voters from Party B, which would give the results of all 10 positions going to Party A on average, the probability of Party B getting a seat would be high, but each seat they gained would greatly reduce the probability of gaining another seat with the maximum possible seats they could gain being 6 (having 6 Party B voters in 6 different districts and the remaining 4 Party B people not mattering). It should be noted that just because the most likely outcome is Party A gaining all 10 seats does not mean that the chance is above 50%, I am too lazy to do the actual math but if I guesstimate with the probability curve being linear (I don't think it would be so these numbers will actually seem more favorable towards Party B then it would be), then there would be a 25% chance of Party A gaining all 10 seats. However, the average number of seats would be 8 for Party A and 2 for Party B which is skewed in favor of Party A when looking at things proportionally. Remember that because of the estimates that I use these percentages are skewed in favor of Party B which means that Party A would actually be more dominant in reality.
However, in reality voters tend to live near voters of the same party, which means that you are much more likely to see distributions such as this:
district 1: (9A 1B), district 2: (8A 2B), district 3: (8A 2B), district 4: (3A 7B), district 5: (2A 8B),
district 6: (6A 4B), district 7: (6A 4B), district 8: (7A 3B), district 9: (2A 8B), district 10: (9A 1B).
I just made this set up and it gives 7 seats to Party A and 3 to Party B, in general I think (not 100% sure) that this system of voting slightly favors the majority, but I'm not completely sure.
The way that gerrymandering really works is that it creates a lot of tight races. Let's take each of the groups from the previous example and then try to optimize them for Party B. In this example we will say that the districts make up a big line so that district 1 is next to district 2, district 2 is next to 1 and 3, etc. This means that if Party B is able to successfully gerrymander they can move a vote from a district to either district adjacent to it in exchange for a vote of the other party (This is representative of shifting the border of a district to take some land from its neighbor that it wants and giving away some land that it doesn't want). Basically, district 1 can exchange their "B" vote for one of district 2's "A" votes changing them from 1:(9A 1B) and 2:(8A 2B) to 1:(10A 0B) and 2:(7A 3B). Using this you could change the whole voting outcome to become:1: (9A 1B), 2: (10A 0B), 3: (4A 6B), 4: (4A 6B), 5: (4A 6B), 6: (4A 6B), 7: (4A 6B), 8: (10A 0B), 9: (2A 8B), 10: (9A 1B). This new distribution would give Party B 6 of the seats, leaving only 4 seats for Party A (Party B basically stole 3 seats which is 30% of the total available seats). This example is greatly idealized in that each district originally had the specific voters that it wanted to get rid of in places where it could easily trade with the other districts, but the point of the example still stands.
A great real world gerrymandering example is in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is known as a swing state that is roughly 50/50 in terms of liberal/conservative and this is observed in its governor elections and every 4 years in the national presidential election, both of which are based on popular vote in the state. However, despite this the Republican Party has a supermajority in the state congress, taking up 2/3 of the available seats which is a majority that allows for them to override vetoes from the governor which means that even if the state is majority liberal and has voted in a Democrat governor, the Republican Party can almost completely ignore him when it comes to legislature by just voting to override the veto. If the Republicans did not have a supermajority and only had a regular majority, then they would have to compromise with a Democrat governor in order to pass legislature which would give some more voice to nearly half of the population. However, because the Republicans have such a supermajority, they can ignore what is currently over half of the population in Wisconsin.
Luckily this is changing right now actually because the Wisconsin Supreme Court has just gained a liberal majority and are planning on working to de-gerrymander the state.
This was a very long reply and I honestly have no idea how communicable I made my thoughts but I hope that this can help you understand how gerrymandering can effect an election.
Packing a certain group of voters into one district so they can't win
Cracking a grouping of voters into several districts to dilute their power
Very confusing explanation.
I think I got a C in econ
i still don't understand how moving boundaries can change how people vote.
It doesn't. It changes the impact a person's vote has within their district.
It doesn't change how people vote, but it changes how the votes are counted.
In the US, they don't count individual votes, but rather each district gets a vote. So if you were to make one large district that votes for one party and 5 small districts that vote for another, even if the population is equally split, it will come out to 1:5
This is a lot of words, but I think it conveys how gerrymandering can greatly affect the outcome of an election *without* changing how people vote.
Main Point: Gerrymandering is artificially determining what type of voters get put into each voting group in order to favor one particular party, this is done by making as many voting districts are a close but still definitively won district for a particular party because it uses the least amount of votes to win a particular area; there is no benefit to having 100% of a voting district voting for the same candidate, instead you could split 40% of those voters into a different district and add the same number of voters who vote for the other party into the district and it will be a 60-40 victory and those other 40% of the original voters can be used to win another district.
I'll give an example that might help:
Lets say you have 10 different positions that are up for election and you have 100 voters, 60 side with Party A and 40 side with Party B. According to basic logic, of those 10 positions up for election, 6 should be won by Party A and 4 should be won by Party B, that would be a fair and even split that would allow for the views of those 100 voters to be fairly represented among the elected group, this type of sampling is called proportional sampling. However, this is not how the election process in the US works. The US uses what is called district based sampling which divides the voters into groups based on where they live.
In our example, the voters would be split into 10 districts. If the voters are randomly spread out with no tendency to live near other voters with the same party, then the average group would contain 6 voters from Party A and 4 voters from Party B, which would give the results of all 10 positions going to Party A on average, the probability of Party B getting a seat would be high, but each seat they gained would greatly reduce the probability of gaining another seat with the maximum possible seats they could gain being 6 (having 6 Party B voters in 6 different districts and the remaining 4 Party B people not mattering). It should be noted that just because the most likely outcome is Party A gaining all 10 seats does not mean that the chance is above 50%, I am too lazy to do the actual math but if I guesstimate with the probability curve being linear (I don't think it would be so these numbers will actually seem more favorable towards Party B then it would be), then there would be a 25% chance of Party A gaining all 10 seats. However, the average number of seats would be 8 for Party A and 2 for Party B which is skewed in favor of Party A when looking at things proportionally. Remember that because of the estimates that I use these percentages are skewed in favor of Party B which means that Party A would actually be more dominant in reality.
However, in reality voters tend to live near voters of the same party, which means that you are much more likely to see distributions such as this:
district 1: (9A 1B), district 2: (8A 2B), district 3: (8A 2B), district 4: (3A 7B), district 5: (2A 8B),
district 6: (6A 4B), district 7: (6A 4B), district 8: (7A 3B), district 9: (2A 8B), district 10: (9A 1B).
I just made this set up and it gives 7 seats to Party A and 3 to Party B, in general I think (not 100% sure) that this system of voting slightly favors the majority, but I'm not completely sure.
The way that gerrymandering really works is that it creates a lot of tight races. Let's take each of the groups from the previous example and then try to optimize them for Party B. In this example we will say that the districts make up a big line so that district 1 is next to district 2, district 2 is next to 1 and 3, etc. This means that if Party B is able to successfully gerrymander they can move a vote from a district to either district adjacent to it in exchange for a vote of the other party (This is representative of shifting the border of a district to take some land from its neighbor that it wants and giving away some land that it doesn't want). Basically, district 1 can exchange their "B" vote for one of district 2's "A" votes changing them from 1:(9A 1B) and 2:(8A 2B) to 1:(10A 0B) and 2:(7A 3B). Using this you could change the whole voting outcome to become:1: (9A 1B), 2: (10A 0B), 3: (4A 6B), 4: (4A 6B), 5: (4A 6B), 6: (4A 6B), 7: (4A 6B), 8: (10A 0B), 9: (2A 8B), 10: (9A 1B). This new distribution would give Party B 6 of the seats, leaving only 4 seats for Party A (Party B basically stole 3 seats which is 30% of the total available seats). This example is greatly idealized in that each district originally had the specific voters that it wanted to get rid of in places where it could easily trade with the other districts, but the point of the example still stands.
A great real world gerrymandering example is in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is known as a swing state that is roughly 50/50 in terms of liberal/conservative and this is observed in its governor elections and every 4 years in the national presidential election, both of which are based on popular vote in the state. However, despite this the Republican Party has a supermajority in the state congress, taking up 2/3 of the available seats which is a majority that allows for them to override vetoes from the governor which means that even if the state is majority liberal and has voted in a Democrat governor, the Republican Party can almost completely ignore him when it comes to legislature by just voting to override the veto. If the Republicans did not have a supermajority and only had a regular majority, then they would have to compromise with a Democrat governor in order to pass legislature which would give some more voice to nearly half of the population. However, because the Republicans have such a supermajority, they can ignore what is currently over half of the population in Wisconsin.
Luckily this is changing right now actually because the Wisconsin Supreme Court has just gained a liberal majority and are planning on working to de-gerrymander the state.
This was a very long reply and I honestly have no idea how communicable I made my thoughts but I hope that this can help you understand how gerrymandering can effect an election.
Imagine your neighbood is perfectly split in half. One half of your neighbors vote blue. The other half red. Thas a perfect 50/50 split.
You have to divide up the neighborhood into circles. One circle equals one vote.
Now imagine you draw a circle that encloses a whole row of red houses but only includes a single blue house. Red wins that circle. Keep doing that until youve made a bunch of circles with a red majority.
What about all of the blue houses that are left? Put them in one big circle. That is now the only blue district.
Because of the way you drew the circles, most of them favor red. Even though the actual neighborhood is 50/50 on party affiliation. Congrats. You are now a gerrymander-er
We fix it by voting against incumbents whenever we are not happy with government. Game theory will then lead them to stop gerrymandering. It only takes a small minority to flip the script.
There will always be like 20% of people happy with the government and 20% unhappy.
@@josephwodarczyk977 But if we can get the unhappy ones to stop sending the same people back to office, we will change government for the better.
We are a republic. If we were a democracy, gerrymandering would not be possible.
The USA is a representative democracy and a republic. The two are largely synonymous. The USA is not a direct democracy, but while all direct democracies are democracies, not all democracies are direct democracies.
@@1sdani It’s actually a constitutional republic first before a representative democracy. But people say democracy, because it’s a trendy word on the internet.
@@wifi961 A constitutional republic is a type of representative democracy. All constitutional republics are representative democracies, but not all representative democracies are constitutional republics. A representative democracy is a country where the legislature is elected, whereas a constitutional republic is a representative democracy where the chief executive is elected.
The UK for example is a representative democracy because its legislature is elected by the people, but not a constitutional republic because the prime minister is appointed by the monarch, in the past with discretion, but in modern times solely based on who is the head of the party with a majority in the legislature, and thus is not elected by the people.
@@1sdani Yeah but you forgot the part where the elected have to abide by the written rules established by the governed, which is a constitution.
@@wifi961 You do realize the UK has a constitution too, right? Having a constitution and being a representative democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Gerrymandering: When congressional district lines are drawn in a way your group doesn’t like.
😊
Fahmi suruh datang
Hello, you may have heard the news that your country is going to attack Iran. Please, please, you who are its people, prevent this from happening. We, the people of Iran, have not committed any sin.
Wait when are we attacking Iran? WHY?
What Bullshit have you been force-fed by your shia government?
IQ tests should be mandatory for voting.
...well
poll tax too eh?
Oh yeah? And what would be the threshold for allowing somebody to vote? What if people that life in areas that have a subpar education system don't do as well on an IQ test as other populations? Should they all be excluded? Different age groups can score differently too.
@@ben5073 if they are not educated, they should not be voting.
@@ItzDrowZ_ so you mean a person who is not educated cant vote to try and have his future children be educated? Ok dude...
@@ItzDrowZ_ who will make the IQ test? what about an IQ test that's: "do you support our candidate?" yes -> smart enough to vote, no -> stupid and you can't vote
Eliminate Gerrymandering. Michigan did something, and we got all Democrats to run our State. New York re-drew their map....and got George Santos! hahhahahahhhhahh
And look at what LA is doing now
Gerrymandering based on natural qualities is illegal. Gerrymandering based on election qualities illegal too.
Two points, if you're going to make a video on gerrymandering, at least learn how to pronounce the damn word. The name starts with a hard G not a soft G. Secondly, the United States Constitution states that those who are to decide what the voting districts are is the state legislature and nobody can overrule them, and even the Supreme Court won't follow their own directives as far as the United States Constitution is concerned.
Just to make it clear, those of you who want to protect democracy need to move the hell out of our country because the if you read the United States Constitution we are guaranteed a republic, not a goddamn democracy.
The founding fathers of this nation knew that there was never a democracy on this planet that lasted more than about two generations. Because you're immediately giving up all of the Authority or rights of the minority to 51% of the majority. That is not assuring rights to anybody!
It is pronounced Jerry-mandering, even though it was named after G-erry. The video is correct
If the US isn't a democracy, then why have elections? What do they mean?
uuuhhhhhhhh... Democracies do last for more than 2 generations?
Here in the Netherlands we've had a constitutional monarchy, with 2 chambers (first being like the senate and the second being like the house of representatives). The first chamber is chosen by representatives of local elections, the second chamber is chosen in a national election every 4 years (or unless our government starts infighting too bad, grumble grumble.)
The big thing with our elections is that we don't choose a single representative to elect to office. We select 150. The entire second chamber is elected in one go. As a result, we have a lot more voices that can be heard, because not voting for either of the 2 biggest parties just means the party you did vote for has a higher chance of getting more voices, instead of the other of the 2 big ones you like less getting more popular because you split votes
Here, split votes are fully okay, since the parties must work together in order to actually get a majority. And if a party gets more than 50%? Next cycle everyone can vote for a multitude of parties they might like, since split votes aren't a bad thing. That coalition can seize the >50% and then form a government.
Plus, empathy is a thing. If people here see 30% of our citizens suffering at the direct hands of the government? you bet that the people in power are gonna sweat bullets
They have sweat bullets over the last 10 or so years over about 2500 people suffering due to our government screwing up. There was huge public outcry because hundreds of struggling parents were falsely denied benefits, which ended with lost homes and with children in foster care.
And the about the 2 generations?
With exception of our invasion in WWII, we've had this system with very little modification since 1848