I hear you, but actually the founders never did anything wrong so clearly it's fine for politicians to draw their own boundaries and you're actually just so conceded for even thinking you were smarter than our founders.
I'm not the most educated about my own country's methods, but listening to anyone explaining the American voting system always makes me feel like I've stumbled into an advanced physics class or something
In Australia our electoral districts are drawn by map nerds, not politicians. However, it still produces a two party system. I think a better solution is multi-member seats, to create a better sense of proportional representation. I mean, screw electoralism ultimately, but it would be better than what we have, and a whole hell of a lot better than what you guys are dealing with.
I've always thought there should be a rule on how many "sides" there can be to a district. Meaning you choose a number to be the max and they can't add any more lines than that if it makes sense. Like if your max is 6, then your district can only have a maximum of 6 sides and you don't get gyrados shaped districts
Good video! Gerrymandering - or well, even splitting by districts - is a fuck The fact that those in power get to redraw the districts is especially bizarre, with next to no oversight and checking from a third party to make sure it's done fairly
While it's clear that there is a conflict of interest in gerrymandering, I've always wondered why the districts arent drawn statistically trying to match the registered voters for each party. Like if there is a 3:2 split why not have districts in a multiple of 5 that roughly equates each side?
Competitiveness would certainly be more democratic, and algorithms would definitely help with that. As to why it hasn't happened yet? I dunno politicians like having easy election cycles.
4:40 "The fact that he bailed out Wall Street instead of regular people after the great recession may go down as the worst missed layup in political history" This is a sentiment I came across time and time again. However, this doesn't make any sense. Let me explain: The financial system is to the economy what the circulatory system is to the body. If your blood stops flowing, you will die no matter how healthy your liver or kidneys are. The same applies to credit. No matter how well the economy is doing, the collapse of the financial system will bring it down as credit dries up. I hope I don't need to explain why this is not a good outcome. In 2008, we went through a housing crisis and a financial crisis. People forget the latter. If we bailed out the people, since their payments would be spread over time, it could have taken years for them to pay back to the banks. The problem here is that banks could have collapsed any minute, they needed liquidity immediately. That would be too slow. Moreover, if the government bailed out the people, the people would be indebted to the government. Ironically, people would pay their existing debts to banks with the money we've bailed them out with, which means bailing out the people would give free money to banks. To recap, a really simple way to look at the bailouts would be: Government gave money to banks because if banks fail, the entire system fails. This includes you, too. Banks managed to get their stuff together. Banks paid back to the government. In fact, the government profited from the bailouts. While all of this was happening, the government helped ordinary Americans in other ways as well. To name a few: Making Home Affordable, Principal Reduction Alternative, Second Lien Modification Program, Home Affordable Unemployment Program, Home Affordable Modification Program, and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Edit: To be clear, government "gave money" to financial institutions by buying preferred stock, but I chose to simplify this process for the sake of my argument. Edit2: Also, Bush was the president when TARP started. I guess the argument is that Obama could've changed course then.
Maybe politicians drawing their own districts is a problem
I hear you, but actually the founders never did anything wrong so clearly it's fine for politicians to draw their own boundaries and you're actually just so conceded for even thinking you were smarter than our founders.
@@pileybenton656 oh sheesh my bad. Clearly I am but a humble insignificance compared to these allmighty 300 year old beings
I'm not the most educated about my own country's methods, but listening to anyone explaining the American voting system always makes me feel like I've stumbled into an advanced physics class or something
We like to keep things stupidly complicated over here
In Australia our electoral districts are drawn by map nerds, not politicians. However, it still produces a two party system. I think a better solution is multi-member seats, to create a better sense of proportional representation. I mean, screw electoralism ultimately, but it would be better than what we have, and a whole hell of a lot better than what you guys are dealing with.
I've always thought there should be a rule on how many "sides" there can be to a district. Meaning you choose a number to be the max and they can't add any more lines than that if it makes sense. Like if your max is 6, then your district can only have a maximum of 6 sides and you don't get gyrados shaped districts
Oooooh that's a really interesting solution 🤔🤔🤔
Good video! Gerrymandering - or well, even splitting by districts - is a fuck
The fact that those in power get to redraw the districts is especially bizarre, with next to no oversight and checking from a third party to make sure it's done fairly
LMAO ONYX
While it's clear that there is a conflict of interest in gerrymandering, I've always wondered why the districts arent drawn statistically trying to match the registered voters for each party. Like if there is a 3:2 split why not have districts in a multiple of 5 that roughly equates each side?
Competitiveness would certainly be more democratic, and algorithms would definitely help with that. As to why it hasn't happened yet? I dunno politicians like having easy election cycles.
Because they just wanna win, they don't care if its fair or makes sense.
I do not believe this man actually plays the basketball.
bump
4:40 "The fact that he bailed out Wall Street instead of regular people after the great recession may go down as the worst missed layup in political history"
This is a sentiment I came across time and time again. However, this doesn't make any sense. Let me explain:
The financial system is to the economy what the circulatory system is to the body. If your blood stops flowing, you will die no matter how healthy your liver or kidneys are. The same applies to credit. No matter how well the economy is doing, the collapse of the financial system will bring it down as credit dries up. I hope I don't need to explain why this is not a good outcome.
In 2008, we went through a housing crisis and a financial crisis. People forget the latter. If we bailed out the people, since their payments would be spread over time, it could have taken years for them to pay back to the banks. The problem here is that banks could have collapsed any minute, they needed liquidity immediately. That would be too slow. Moreover, if the government bailed out the people, the people would be indebted to the government. Ironically, people would pay their existing debts to banks with the money we've bailed them out with, which means bailing out the people would give free money to banks.
To recap, a really simple way to look at the bailouts would be:
Government gave money to banks because if banks fail, the entire system fails. This includes you, too.
Banks managed to get their stuff together.
Banks paid back to the government. In fact, the government profited from the bailouts.
While all of this was happening, the government helped ordinary Americans in other ways as well. To name a few: Making Home Affordable, Principal Reduction Alternative, Second Lien Modification Program, Home Affordable Unemployment Program, Home Affordable Modification Program, and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Edit: To be clear, government "gave money" to financial institutions by buying preferred stock, but I chose to simplify this process for the sake of my argument.
Edit2: Also, Bush was the president when TARP started. I guess the argument is that Obama could've changed course then.