I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is the end result of decades of gerrymandered districts. When a Representative has to fear a challenge from within his own party because he is viewed as not conservative or liberal enough something is wrong. Elected representatives from "safe" districts have moved further to the extremes because if they don't they lose to someone more extreme. Eventually, though, the levy breaks and you get the likes of the Freedom Caucus, who view compromise as an anathema and feel that grinding the federal government to a halt every few months is a good way to govern.
But who can blame them? If they don't stick to the extreme promises they made to get elected their "safe" districts will just vote them out and elect people just as or even more extreme. In truth, they have a limited lifespan anyway because, just as with their predecessors, there will be others even more extreme running against them eventually because their districts are "safe".
It's really no surprise that Boehner called it quits after trying to work with them for a few years. I get frustrated after trying to deal with my kid for 10 minutes when she's intractable. McCarthy saw what a political quagmire trying to corral that group would be. I suspect Ryan will do the same, especially if he has his sights on the presidency.
It'll take a Dem winning and then gerrymandering away the Repuplican safe zones.
That's not how gerrymandering works. The process creates safe districts for both parties: you can't make voters disappear, so in order to make a district safer for you, you have to put the other side's supporters somewhere else. That's why neither party ever seriously tries to un-gerrymander things.
Even were this not the case in general, a Democrat would be ill-advised to un-gerrymander right now, because ending the GOP civil war is the last thing the Democrats want.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's not how gerrymandering works. The process creates safe districts for both parties: you can't make voters disappear, so in order to make a district safer for you, you have to put the other side's supporters somewhere else. That's why neither party ever seriously tries to un-gerrymander things.
Sort of. If the voters are 50-50, and make my party's safe districts be 80-20, and I make the other party's safe districts be 100-0, then I can create a situation where all districts are safe, but my party has more districts than the other. If that party somehow gets in power, they'd want to undo my gerrymandering. I think the reason no one wants to un-gerrymander is that, given the choice, you'd want to instead re-gerrymander, but in a way that is in your own favor.
Our constitution encourages gerrymandering because it offers no representation for second place. You need a constitutional amendment that allows either for multimember districts or proportional representation. However, since the amendment process requires the involvement of the beneficiaries of gerrymandering...good luck with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus
http://brat.house.gov/speaker-commitments
Speakership debate, and these have been the 2011 Tea Party people. Thoughts?
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
But who can blame them? If they don't stick to the extreme promises they made to get elected their "safe" districts will just vote them out and elect people just as or even more extreme. In truth, they have a limited lifespan anyway because, just as with their predecessors, there will be others even more extreme running against them eventually because their districts are "safe".
It's really no surprise that Boehner called it quits after trying to work with them for a few years. I get frustrated after trying to deal with my kid for 10 minutes when she's intractable. McCarthy saw what a political quagmire trying to corral that group would be. I suspect Ryan will do the same, especially if he has his sights on the presidency.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Even were this not the case in general, a Democrat would be ill-advised to un-gerrymander right now, because ending the GOP civil war is the last thing the Democrats want.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sort of. If the voters are 50-50, and make my party's safe districts be 80-20, and I make the other party's safe districts be 100-0, then I can create a situation where all districts are safe, but my party has more districts than the other. If that party somehow gets in power, they'd want to undo my gerrymandering. I think the reason no one wants to un-gerrymander is that, given the choice, you'd want to instead re-gerrymander, but in a way that is in your own favor.