The issue that I am passionate about is election reform. Including things like getting rid of gerrymandering, making voting more accessible, making the houses more representative of the people, and breaking down big donor influence on elections and policy. Neither of the big two parties comes close to making any of this happen.

If these things are not fixed, the parties in control can do whatever they want. They can keep us divided by shouting about one passion-based issue in public then doing nothing about it while serving big donor interests in legislation.

I don't see how any mainstream issue matters when you can't trust elected officials to act on any issue you care about. That is unless you are one of the self-interested donors who writes your own bills. Then it still doesn't matter which party is in power because you can control them both.

[–] GhostTheToast@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Off topic slightly, but I've seen on Lemmy lately where people are saying "get rid of gerrymandering" and I'm curious about the argument for this.

Honestly, I'd love for it to happen, but I assumed it was impossible in a Representative Democracy because of how the system/math worked. Kinda of an inherit problem. Mostly because the ways I've heard to remedy this issue is to distribute districts in such a way that they more closely resemble their population ratios. However, isn't this also a form of gerrymandering? Districts are getting set to way we think they should be. Not saying that wrong persay, just feel like a bandage solution. Like we're beating a nail in with a wrench. In a way though, this reminds me of the Observer Effect in a way

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There isn't a perfect way to draw districts. I like sortest splitline for its simplicity and impartial strategy.

The best solution I can see is to evolve the House of Representatives into a body of proportional representation. This could be done in state level houses as well. Single winner, or other small number of winners elections should have ranked choice to make it harder for parties to maintain dominance.

[–] GhostTheToast@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

This was more of the point I was trying to hit but couldn't think of

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

isn't this also a form of Gerrymandering?

no.

gerrymandering is editing the borders for your party's gain.

If it's done to be balanced and representive, then it isn't gerrymandering.

there's a super simple solution: stop having the ruling party be allowed to draw the lines. Have the whole thing be controlled by ordinary government bureaucrats. No-one elected involved at any point.

then, suddenly, impossible for gerrymandering to exist, outside of criminal interference.