this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
867 points (91.2% liked)

196

5086 readers
531 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It gives more weight to their vote. It doesn’t change their situation by itself inherently, but if enough people make these types of moves it could shift the political landscape of the country.

Functionally, a lot of legislation is held back by not having enough votes in both the House and Senate, more so the Senate than the House. Personally, I would want to see the House and Senate rebalanced in the future to be a minimum of five representatives and senators per state, but then scaled up based on population. Assuming we have also changed the voting system in each state to be more representative through ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting then each state will do a much better job of actually reflecting the population’s voting preferences.

Functionally, we should build a media system that people want to engage in. Changing the voting system is a core part of changing the media system as well. As you risk alienating potential voters if you demonize the other side, this would at the very least move politics aware from hyper-partisanship.

To change the media ecosystem, we need the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to social media. This can happen to some extent on the state level, but we functionally need it on the federal level to see a lasting impact. Democrats/progressives need a majority of seats in the House and Senate to even attempt to pass something like the Fairness Doctrine. Ideally, you would want a 3-5 seat majority in the Senate and at least 10 seat majority in the House to pass a majority of the legislation you want to pass. You need a 10 seat majority in the Senate if you want your legislation to be filibuster proofed.

Economic incentives reward more left leaning politics imo. Left leaning politics is good for the people and good for businesses as well in the long run.

It depends on the state if we’re talking about legislatures that have a big enough majority that they can change the district maps quickly enough to disenfranchise voters. Those new maps usually need to be approved by the courts though. If the courts deem the new maps are gerrymandered, they can at least force the election to be off the old map used in the previous election. I would recommend doing research ahead of time if your goal is to make a voter impact. Encouraging others in your community to turn out to vote can make a difference as well.

Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections. While maps can be redrawn, those maps need to be approved by the courts to be able to be used. The reason I mention researching ahead of time is because you will be a new arrival in the state, the legislature doesn’t have a record necessarily of how you personally will vote. Even if they do, then you could be in a sea of voters from other political parties. Your vote can make a difference still on the city level, school board elections level, governor level, and the federal level. The state level is the most likely to be affected by gerrymandering, but you can try to not group to a left leaning area that’s easier for legislators to gerrymander out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections.

Not when enfranchisement is dictated by the entrenched government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Functionally, moving to a purple state makes a notable difference. The reason the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered so much was because of the courts confirming potentially gerrymandered maps. If enough people move to purple states that they shifted blue, then it could impact Federal elections which could potentially impose legislation against gerrymandering at a federal level. They could even potentially withhold federal funding, in some instances, should states refuse to use non-gerrymandered maps.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered

Firstly, I think you're talking about the Wisconsin SC. Secondly, that remains to be seen. Thirdly, Wisconsin's Senators illustrate the problem with this hypothesis - they seem capable of electing both Republican and Democrat Senators (and Governors) depending on the winds of the political moment.

Moving to Wisconsin won't tilt the state blue because you'll be exposed to all the same socio-economic forces everyone else in Wisconsin is enduring.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

As you might have guessed I’m not a voter in those states but the point I was making about it remains pretty much the same.

In this specific case it will remain to be seen, but in general this type of election matters at tackling the problem of gerrymandering is the main point I was getting at, I believe it is important not to lose the forest for the trees on this.

Gerrymandering is one of the problems, turn out is another, disenfranchisement is another, ease of voting is an additional problem, clerical errors when voting is another problem as well. There are many specific problems and it is important that we try to address each of them.

Having politicians that people feel are looking out for their best interests matters as well. You can be the perfect candidate on paper, but maybe you’re not great at messaging to your local voting base or not using the right communication channels to reach your audience. Many of these things matter when trying to get people out to vote.

If more people that lived in deep red or blue states moved to a state from Wisconsin for instance and moved to a swing district, then it could substantially help shift the tides of the subsequent elections.

A person that votes blue moving to Wisconsin can be another blue Wisconsin vote. I’m not saying a random person moving and voting without preference, but someone that wants to make a difference moving.

I think state politics are a bit different from federal as well if we want to be more grand scale. States currently aren’t wanting to go into debt or ignore a debt limit to help their state grow economically or to provide wide safety nets. Mind you it is risky for a state to do that since it works a lot better on a federal level as you’re not directly competing against other states for lost business, assuming some corporations leave when you increase the corporate tax rate on a state level.