"When voting does not matter then Democracy does not matter" is the key takeaway. Political gerrymandering, the process of politicians picking voters, undermines the value of an individual's single vote while rewarding the most extreme political candidates. We must find solutions such as the one being offered by Joe.
But how do you undo election rigging when the damage is already there? I can only picture literally overthrowing the government by force if these "party" refuse to fix the issue.
We need more people like Joe who are thinking in a positive way for possible solutions...in a nation of so many people, few are offering solutions that are specific and practical. I believe Joe's solution to gerrymandering is a realistic one....good luck finding goodwill in those who have the power to carry it out....
The easiest way to reduce gerrymandering is to do away with this system. Have the electorate vote directly for the president. State elections can be voted at large. Move to a proportional representational system and away from a winner takes all system. The majority will thank you.
Majority rule is terrifying if you are in the minority. And we are all, in one way or another, at one time or another, in the minority. Gerrymandering doesn't really affect presidential votes, though.
Gerrymandering is the most corrosive long term political practice that undermines our representative democracy. Nonpartisan commissions should create districts based on criteria that reflect a community of the whole based on geography and population distribution. Using neutral redistricting criteria is possible. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of non-partisan commissions. Some states have tried and failed, but we must keep trying.
Commissions maybe another solution- but I worry that unless ratified or authorized by the state legislature- it will not work for Congressional seats (Const Art 1)
Voting districts should be larger and overlapping (but not fully overlapping), which means each household would be in multiple districts and politicians should be responsive to multiple communities also represented by other politicians. This will eliminate gerrymandering because politicians could not draw lines to include/exclude neighboring communities. This is likely possible on a state basis, not a federal one without a constitutional amendment.
Excellent, thank you Joe. Having so few competitive races is an enormous issue. I have a suggestion for your next talk. The Electoral College. Not an expert, but from the very beginning, there was quite the history and there was lots of debate and consternation on how to elect President's. Myself, I think at a minimum having 48 of 50 states using winner-take-all, needs to be changed.
Gerrymandering certainly sucks, but the continual attacks on third parties (there are two wings of one party where the Republicrats are concerned) and placing often insurmountable barriers to participation. That is worse than gerrymandering.
So inspiring but yet it seems so far fetched given how the system already works. This is the message ppl really need to see, instead they just want to complain about how horrible the candidates are instead of doing what needs to be done to fix that.
The system cannot “fix” itself. Goes against human nature to give up power. But the SCOTUS decision in June opens the doors to the STATE Supreme courts to address - if they can summon the courage.
Would open primaries help? That is, when political parties hold primaries, all candidates from all parties contest the election and all eligible voters cast their ballots at the same time. The top two or three vote-getters contest the general election. That might dilute the impact of extreme candidates and dilute the power of political parties.
Its always been astonishing that the supreme Court does not see defending the nation's democracy as an essential responsibility. They should have taken much more dramatic action on this way back in the early 1800s
@@Robespierre-lI Nooooooooooo its the Congress who made this Gerrymandering law, so there's no way Supreme Court can remove it. Its the Congress who needs to remove Gerrymandering law, Supreme Court cannot remove it.
With a court order under the state constitution - like 1 person 1 vote. Use existing community lines already drawn and only whole communities in a district
@@joebankoff2558 ok, but who does this? I'm thinking along the lines of what can regular Joe do? I'm not going out and hiring a lawyer or submitting court documents.
I've always thought it was odd about America, you are either red or blue. Isn't it about what government can do for your district and you as an individual? Voting red or blue, seems to forget why the voting is voting! They aren't voting red or blue, they are (supposedly) voting what's best for their area and individualism. When America made it about us or them, it became a football match, irrespective of what benefit you or your community gains, the individual will vote for their side! This makes no sense at all, and is unique only to America within all other civilized countries who vote on what benefits them instead. Imagine voting for red or blue, not knowing which one actually benefits you? This is outrageous! Are either side benefitting you?
The hard part about arguing against gerrymandering is that in practice there are surprisingly good arguments to be made for any given gerrymander. The argument for packing is that the minority gets representation they wouldn't get if they were cracked. And that representative must be beloved, because they never lose. And that representative likes it because they're ideologically extreme, so they can't get elected if their district gets split into two competitive districts. And they get money from all over the country because highly ideological voters will support whoever they can find that's championing their views.
Gerrymandering has many footholds throughout the US, Ohio more recently having one of the worst maps in the last 100 years. My question, is how are people with disabilities represented in these populations, when it’s all too common for mail in ballots, inaccessible voting machines due to poor funding for routine updates, and poor public transportation? I recognize this argument, and the need to sort these issues out. Up to 27% and rising of the US is disabled. How can we better include people with disabilities in these statistics, especially when 1/3rd of people are known to not vote?
@bdc2320 Absolutely not lol. California and Illinois have 10 seats between them alone that should be republican. Everyone just ignores them cause it white people.
High Quality Democracy is definitely an oligarchy but the thing here is that oligarchy is NEVER gonna ALWAYS stay with the same few people because the High Quality Democracy will timely refresh those few people in-order to do the RIGHT THING FOR the People but NOT for the party.
@@stephenstokes9117 Yes & so the instability must be worked out with solutions to make stability out of it which is the crucial part of democracy. If its not worked out then we will surely have a autocratic ruler
@@manujohn99 in theory democracy sounds nice but in a practical application of “democracy” voting should severely be restricted and not open to the minorities of the population nor the non-religious.
It's necessary. Populations do move, so lines do need to be drawn and redrawn. I don't agree with politically biased changes, but there's no easy solution here.
@@meanderinoranges Yes, Populations do move but the movement is NOT a huge change, it is a little change so Gerrymandering is ABSOLUTELY WRONG & must be REMOVED.
Being a partisan doesn't make life better and it certainly doesn't heal. Rather than being disparaging of someone else's choice and it is their choice you should be rejoicing that they made that choice. Because that is the true nature of freedom.
Not inevitable. You don't really think the US is the only nation with voting districts do you? The UK doesn't have this problem, for example. But proportional representation is a better system for other reasons.
"When voting does not matter then Democracy does not matter" is the key takeaway. Political gerrymandering, the process of politicians picking voters, undermines the value of an individual's single vote while rewarding the most extreme political candidates. We must find solutions such as the one being offered by Joe.
Yaa but the Congress won't let us find any solution as well as if we find any, then they won't let us use the solution that easily. 😥😥😭
But how do you undo election rigging when the damage is already there? I can only picture literally overthrowing the government by force if these "party" refuse to fix the issue.
We need more people like Joe who are thinking in a positive way for possible solutions...in a nation of so many people, few are offering solutions that are specific and practical. I believe Joe's solution to gerrymandering is a realistic one....good luck finding goodwill in those who have the power to carry it out....
Gerrymendering means politicians choose their voters, not the other way around....
Dahhhh, it is exactly how this man says.
The easiest way to reduce gerrymandering is to do away with this system. Have the electorate vote directly for the president. State elections can be voted at large. Move to a proportional representational system and away from a winner takes all system. The majority will thank you.
Majority rule is terrifying if you are in the minority. And we are all, in one way or another, at one time or another, in the minority. Gerrymandering doesn't really affect presidential votes, though.
@@jrhoadley The president isn't selected by the voting at large. They are chosen by the electoral college, which is winner take all by state.
Gerrymandering is the most corrosive long term political practice that undermines our representative democracy. Nonpartisan commissions should create districts based on criteria that reflect a community of the whole based on geography and population distribution. Using neutral redistricting criteria is possible. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of non-partisan commissions. Some states have tried and failed, but we must keep trying.
Commissions maybe another solution- but I worry that unless ratified or authorized by the state legislature- it will not work for Congressional seats (Const Art 1)
Voting districts should be larger and overlapping (but not fully overlapping), which means each household would be in multiple districts and politicians should be responsive to multiple communities also represented by other politicians. This will eliminate gerrymandering because politicians could not draw lines to include/exclude neighboring communities. This is likely possible on a state basis, not a federal one without a constitutional amendment.
Brilliant!
Excellent, thank you Joe. Having so few competitive races is an enormous issue. I have a suggestion for your next talk. The Electoral College. Not an expert, but from the very beginning, there was quite the history and there was lots of debate and consternation on how to elect President's. Myself, I think at a minimum having 48 of 50 states using winner-take-all, needs to be changed.
Gerrymandering certainly sucks, but the continual attacks on third parties (there are two wings of one party where the Republicrats are concerned) and placing often insurmountable barriers to participation. That is worse than gerrymandering.
it's great talks
So inspiring but yet it seems so far fetched given how the system already works. This is the message ppl really need to see, instead they just want to complain about how horrible the candidates are instead of doing what needs to be done to fix that.
The system cannot “fix” itself. Goes against human nature to give up power. But the SCOTUS decision in June opens the doors to the STATE Supreme courts to address - if they can summon the courage.
I learned this ages ago in high school civics class...what the ...? Wish this wasn't preaching to the choir.
Civics has gotten morphed into Social Studies and does not teach the basics of Civics, from what I can tell.
Definition of Nigeria's democracy
TY
TEDx usually go on vacation in the summertime for a week or two. They have not this year. I wonder why?...
I’m not sure why this needed a Ted Talk? Send self evident to me
Would open primaries help? That is, when political parties hold primaries, all candidates from all parties contest the election and all eligible voters cast their ballots at the same time. The top two or three vote-getters contest the general election. That might dilute the impact of extreme candidates and dilute the power of political parties.
Thnx this Chanel prevented me from hearing podcasts 😁😇❤
Sir...I'm Bigg fan of you.... Because fst msg sir😊😊😊
Me too
Me too
Gerrymandering is WRONG & must be ABOLISHED.
Its always been astonishing that the supreme Court does not see defending the nation's democracy as an essential responsibility. They should have taken much more dramatic action on this way back in the early 1800s
@@Robespierre-lI Nooooooooooo its the Congress who made this Gerrymandering law, so there's no way Supreme Court can remove it. Its the Congress who needs to remove Gerrymandering law, Supreme Court cannot remove it.
Starts with America and whole world is on the same page - world forgot fairness nowadays and we better change this somehow ❤️🌝🌜
*Show this video to everyone you know that cares about their voting rights in the USA*
But how do we get them to create whole districts if they don't want to so basically there's nothing we can do.
With a court order under the state constitution - like 1 person 1 vote. Use existing community lines already drawn and only whole communities in a district
@@joebankoff2558 ok, but who does this? I'm thinking along the lines of what can regular Joe do? I'm not going out and hiring a lawyer or submitting court documents.
I've always thought it was odd about America, you are either red or blue.
Isn't it about what government can do for your district and you as an individual?
Voting red or blue, seems to forget why the voting is voting! They aren't voting red or blue, they are (supposedly) voting what's best for their area and individualism.
When America made it about us or them, it became a football match, irrespective of what benefit you or your community gains, the individual will vote for their side! This makes no sense at all, and is unique only to America within all other civilized countries who vote on what benefits them instead.
Imagine voting for red or blue, not knowing which one actually benefits you? This is outrageous! Are either side benefitting you?
The hard part about arguing against gerrymandering is that in practice there are surprisingly good arguments to be made for any given gerrymander. The argument for packing is that the minority gets representation they wouldn't get if they were cracked. And that representative must be beloved, because they never lose. And that representative likes it because they're ideologically extreme, so they can't get elected if their district gets split into two competitive districts. And they get money from all over the country because highly ideological voters will support whoever they can find that's championing their views.
Gotta love American democracy
We're not a democracy, and we never were. There are zero pure democratic institutions at the federal level.
OR we become a direct democracy, with the popular vote being the one that counts
Gerrymandering has many footholds throughout the US, Ohio more recently having one of the worst maps in the last 100 years. My question, is how are people with disabilities represented in these populations, when it’s all too common for mail in ballots, inaccessible voting machines due to poor funding for routine updates, and poor public transportation?
I recognize this argument, and the need to sort these issues out. Up to 27% and rising of the US is disabled. How can we better include people with disabilities in these statistics, especially when 1/3rd of people are known to not vote?
In gerrymandered districts - NO ONE IS REPRESENTED - only the Political Party who created the “safe district.”
✌✌✌
Yes both parties but it’s far worse in Red States.
@bdc2320 Absolutely not lol. California and Illinois have 10 seats between them alone that should be republican. Everyone just ignores them cause it white people.
Democracy leads to an oligarchy
High Quality Democracy is definitely an oligarchy but the thing here is that oligarchy is NEVER gonna ALWAYS stay with the same few people because the High Quality Democracy will timely refresh those few people in-order to do the RIGHT THING FOR the People but NOT for the party.
@@manujohn99 democracy among a diverse population will always lead to instability.
@@stephenstokes9117 Yes & so the instability must be worked out with solutions to make stability out of it which is the crucial part of democracy.
If its not worked out then we will surely have a autocratic ruler
@@manujohn99 in theory democracy sounds nice but in a practical application of “democracy” voting should severely be restricted and not open to the minorities of the population nor the non-religious.
@@stephenstokes9117 Your insane...
mixed proportional representation like the one used in Germany is the solution.
Gerrymandering is wrong , get rid of it !!!
It's necessary. Populations do move, so lines do need to be drawn and redrawn. I don't agree with politically biased changes, but there's no easy solution here.
@@meanderinoranges Yes, Populations do move but the movement is NOT a huge change, it is a little change so Gerrymandering is ABSOLUTELY WRONG & must be REMOVED.
@@manujohn99 LOL, as if shouting makes your argument compelling.
@@meanderinoranges I am also aware that Gerrymandering is NEVER going to be REMOVED because the people at top in America is HEAVILY CORRUPTED.🤷♂
You call that a Democracy 😅😅😅
What a joke 🎉🎉🎉
Use popular vote
This isn't high school.
That's completely irrelevant to the issue of politically biased gerrymandering.
What use is popular vote when all the votes are picked & chosen according to the needs of the politicians
Right! Why gerrymander when ballet fraud is so much easier?
Its disturbing to think that anyone would actually vote for Brandon or his party
Being a partisan doesn't make life better and it certainly doesn't heal. Rather than being disparaging of someone else's choice and it is their choice you should be rejoicing that they made that choice. Because that is the true nature of freedom.
It's even more disturbing to see how many are still supporting the career criminal who's finally finding out.
Your idea is idealistic but not practical. Somebody has to draw those lines, and it's inevitable that they will be squed towards their party.
Not inevitable. You don't really think the US is the only nation with voting districts do you? The UK doesn't have this problem, for example.
But proportional representation is a better system for other reasons.
@ems4884 Having many relatives living in the UK, I can tell you the parties have control.
Second