Thank you Intelligence Squared! I learn so much from your debates. These debates can go for 2 hours or more and I do not think anyone would mine. Many of us learn so much as opposed to sound bites on network and cable news.
You're right, but I've got to say it's making it very hard for me to remain objective about this debate at the same time. It's like having Martin Shckreli debating the right for corporations to raise medicine prices astronomically, I literally want to punch the guy in the face through my computer screen.
I'm still not quite sure either way, it's obviously a very complicated topic, but I'm glad that the audience responded more to the side that had more rigorous data and less narrative/intuitive arguments, since that's not always how these things go, especially when it's so easy to paint one side as manipulative assholes. And like the moderator pointed out, both sides were very civil and fair even in such a hostile political climate. These debates are pretty classy affairs, really contributing to a higher state of discourse. Glad to be subscribed and enjoying going back through the archives.
Pointing out that the Senate (immune to Gerrymandering) is also polarized devastates the proposition. Pretty much game over on just that one account. Appeals by the for side to Republican success in a "50/50" world ignore that this non-Republican 50% is predominantly bunched into large urban centers.
You need to have a debate about first-past-the-post voting. That is the real problem. We could get real centrist candidates if we replaced party primaries with a single non-partisan primary that all candidates would run in regardless of party. Instead of having a single vote to give to one candidate, voters would vote "yes" or "no" on each candidate in the primary. The two candidates with the most "yes" votes would move on to the general election. If we did this, elections would be competitive regardless of gerrymandering, we'd have more centrist candidates, and the spoiler problem would be vastly reduced.
The comment is not related to this debate, why don't you go around the country presenting this kind of debates? There are intellectuals all around the country that would love such a stimulus...
Hi Ana, Intelligence Squared US presents about 4 debates each year in cities other than New York. Stay tuned for the announcement of our spring season in the coming weeks to find out if we're coming to your city.
Sir, with all due respect I doubt it, I live in Corpus Christi and hardly anything intellectually related comes to this area. Certainly I would love an event such as this to show up here...
Perhaps you and your gad fly colleagues can find a creative, local way to spark interest in thinking about important issues (sponsor a pseudo TED Talk or coordinate a coffee shop debate forum for youths, adults or seniors, that works in conjunction with local universities, the chamber of commerce, local legislature and military institutions, for instance). After being dubbed by Time as the second least literate city in America, and with a rank of 140 out of 150 for low education levels, Corpus Christi--as most other places--can use an influx of critical dialogue.
Great debate and interesting points, but I have to admit, it seems strange we would bring two groups so clearly polarized against each other in a debate about something that is being suggested as a cause of polarization. This was more than two sides disagreeing on one issue, I am willing to bet these four would not agree on any major political issue. That said, no, it is not destructive to the political center. Is it contributing to polarization? Yes, but it is not a primary contributor.
I don't even have enough information to know if I'm split! Obviously no one would argue that the idea of Gerrymandering is good. But with the notion being "Gerrymandering is destroying the political center", I really have no opinion. Looking forward to learning a lot from this.
Just getting through the introductions now and I'm already disappointed by the amount of partisan speech. This seems very Republican v Democrat which is not what I was hoping for at all. Edit: The For side seems the most partisan here
MrC0MPUT3R I didn't say the motion would be about what the _definition_ of Gerrymandering is. There's no doubt that, in theory, it undermines the political process. The motion I proposed would be centered around debating whether Gerrymandering is _actually_ taking place to an extent that it disrupts the political process. That's a debate I'd like to see, because the motion of this video presupposes that it is indeed happening in the first place.
Am I the only one who caught that math error? It isn't 6 in 10 voters, it's more like 3 in 10. Refer to 30:30 thru 31:15 for this. If we assume each party has roughly 50% of the electorate, then .37*.5 + .27*.5 = .32 or 32% of the electorate which is 3 in 10 voters. Unless of course he means those numbers have doubled from 2014 to 2016, which I find very unlikely. Yeah, I found the study, kid can't do math. www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ However, I'll agree the study does show that voters are quite polarized, just not to the degree he states. Human debates are so bad. We need A.I. in these debates, if only for fact checking. It would prove how worthlessly subjective and erroneous we all are.
I feel like both sides relied too much on numbers without explaining clearly enough what those numbers really implicated. I think I went from undecided as a safe stance to undecided because the issue just became confused with stats. Maybe I'm too politically ignorant, but the best debater would be able to draw in the lcd with their numbers and arguments.
So you can't write district lines to exclude minorities but still can gerrymander to discriminate based on something so basic it was overlooked: discrimination based on party preference. Many states have disproportionate representation which doesn't reflect the percentages achieved in an election. Maybe we should throw out district lines totally and just give each party as many candidates as there are apportioned seats in each state and distribute them based on raw votes achieved statewide. Fair? What could be more fair? It's fair unless fair is one of those four-letter words we don't want to say. Smirk.
Gerrymandering Is Destroying the Political Center this is a stupid question, not worthy of debate. The debate should be whether gerrymandering is anti-democratic. Or whether it is fascist.
25 mins, dude just says things "we know is true", like the fading center. That's not actually true, bernie is center, he just looks left because everyone else is so far right. More people favored bernie than Hilary or Donald, so no, the center is not shrinking, there are simply 4 parties for centrists to lean to. Really poor analysis imho
Thank you Intelligence Squared! I learn so much from your debates. These debates can go for 2 hours or more and I do not think anyone would mine. Many of us learn so much as opposed to sound bites on network and cable news.
It's pretty cool that the leader behind the idea is a part of the debate.
You're right, but I've got to say it's making it very hard for me to remain objective about this debate at the same time. It's like having Martin Shckreli debating the right for corporations to raise medicine prices astronomically, I literally want to punch the guy in the face through my computer screen.
I'm still not quite sure either way, it's obviously a very complicated topic, but I'm glad that the audience responded more to the side that had more rigorous data and less narrative/intuitive arguments, since that's not always how these things go, especially when it's so easy to paint one side as manipulative assholes. And like the moderator pointed out, both sides were very civil and fair even in such a hostile political climate. These debates are pretty classy affairs, really contributing to a higher state of discourse. Glad to be subscribed and enjoying going back through the archives.
You need to show us how they talk to each other at the end with no sound! Don't leave that part out. It's the best part of the debates.
Pointing out that the Senate (immune to Gerrymandering) is also polarized devastates the proposition. Pretty much game over on just that one account. Appeals by the for side to Republican success in a "50/50" world ignore that this non-Republican 50% is predominantly bunched into large urban centers.
There is no such thing as non-partisan redistricting, so there is no remedy for gerrymandering.
You need to have a debate about first-past-the-post voting. That is the real problem. We could get real centrist candidates if we replaced party primaries with a single non-partisan primary that all candidates would run in regardless of party. Instead of having a single vote to give to one candidate, voters would vote "yes" or "no" on each candidate in the primary. The two candidates with the most "yes" votes would move on to the general election. If we did this, elections would be competitive regardless of gerrymandering, we'd have more centrist candidates, and the spoiler problem would be vastly reduced.
The comment is not related to this debate, why don't you go around the country presenting this kind of debates? There are intellectuals all around the country that would love such a stimulus...
Hi Ana, Intelligence Squared US presents about 4 debates each year in cities other than New York. Stay tuned for the announcement of our spring season in the coming weeks to find out if we're coming to your city.
Sir, with all due respect I doubt it, I live in Corpus Christi and hardly anything intellectually related comes to this area. Certainly I would love an event such as this to show up here...
Perhaps you and your gad fly colleagues can find a creative, local way to spark interest in thinking about important issues (sponsor a pseudo TED Talk or coordinate a coffee shop debate forum for youths, adults or seniors, that works in conjunction with local universities, the chamber of commerce, local legislature and military institutions, for instance). After being dubbed by Time as the second least literate city in America, and with a rank of 140 out of 150 for low education levels, Corpus Christi--as most other places--can use an influx of critical dialogue.
ian g I love that idea. Sadly, it often doesn't win friends at the watering hole lol
Great debate and interesting points, but I have to admit, it seems strange we would bring two groups so clearly polarized against each other in a debate about something that is being suggested as a cause of polarization. This was more than two sides disagreeing on one issue, I am willing to bet these four would not agree on any major political issue.
That said, no, it is not destructive to the political center. Is it contributing to polarization? Yes, but it is not a primary contributor.
Before I watch I'll say I'm genuinely split on this issue. This should be good :D
I don't even have enough information to know if I'm split! Obviously no one would argue that the idea of Gerrymandering is good. But with the notion being "Gerrymandering is destroying the political center", I really have no opinion. Looking forward to learning a lot from this.
Just getting through the introductions now and I'm already disappointed by the amount of partisan speech. This seems very Republican v Democrat which is not what I was hoping for at all.
Edit: The For side seems the most partisan here
Eric Dickson-Peppler Agreed. It seems so specific. Perhaps "Gerrymandering is undermining the democratic process" would be better.
Jacob Stamm Of course it is. That's the point of Gerrymandering :P
MrC0MPUT3R I didn't say the motion would be about what the _definition_ of Gerrymandering is. There's no doubt that, in theory, it undermines the political process. The motion I proposed would be centered around debating whether Gerrymandering is _actually_ taking place to an extent that it disrupts the political process. That's a debate I'd like to see, because the motion of this video presupposes that it is indeed happening in the first place.
i feel like i just watched this debate a couple of days ago.is this a repost?
Am I the only one who caught that math error? It isn't 6 in 10 voters, it's more like 3 in 10. Refer to 30:30 thru 31:15 for this. If we assume each party has roughly 50% of the electorate, then .37*.5 + .27*.5 = .32 or 32% of the electorate which is 3 in 10 voters. Unless of course he means those numbers have doubled from 2014 to 2016, which I find very unlikely. Yeah, I found the study, kid can't do math. www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ However, I'll agree the study does show that voters are quite polarized, just not to the degree he states. Human debates are so bad. We need A.I. in these debates, if only for fact checking. It would prove how worthlessly subjective and erroneous we all are.
I'm watching this because I can't imagine the other argument... Iq2 please don't let me down
RIP Gwen Iffil
I feel like both sides relied too much on numbers without explaining clearly enough what those numbers really implicated. I think I went from undecided as a safe stance to undecided because the issue just became confused with stats. Maybe I'm too politically ignorant, but the best debater would be able to draw in the lcd with their numbers and arguments.
The American center is dead? perhaps, but to blame it on gerrymandering is ridiculous.
So you can't write district lines to exclude minorities but still can gerrymander to discriminate based on something so basic it was overlooked: discrimination based on party preference. Many states have disproportionate representation which doesn't reflect the percentages achieved in an election. Maybe we should throw out district lines totally and just give each party as many candidates as there are apportioned seats in each state and distribute them based on raw votes achieved statewide. Fair? What could be more fair? It's fair unless fair is one of those four-letter words we don't want to say. Smirk.
You can read more about gerrymandering here:
www.thebiggreen.net/media/2014/11/Egelston-Gerrymandering-Graphic.jpg
Gerrymandering Is Destroying the Political Center this is a stupid question, not worthy of debate. The debate should be whether gerrymandering is anti-democratic. Or whether it is fascist.
Gerrymandering should be illegal
cristi Juju It is illegal but proving it in a form that courts will accept.
very small audience?
Reverse gerrymandering is a remedy to gerrymandering? weak argument.
25 mins, dude just says things "we know is true", like the fading center. That's not actually true, bernie is center, he just looks left because everyone else is so far right. More people favored bernie than Hilary or Donald, so no, the center is not shrinking, there are simply 4 parties for centrists to lean to. Really poor analysis imho
1