Agree with that as "an issue"... but, one issue... just not seeing it linearly providing an obvious real solution to "end that" only ? And doing that could make things worse.
Shut down the one "jiggering process" in a way that doesn't address the others... and in reality the corruption and the practice of fraud... only grow worse the longer one party controls the levers of power in one fiefdom they've carved out. Then, corruption piles on top of corruption... making those most at risk of exposure in the event of change... grow increasingly desperate to prevent change.
That's EXACTLY what's driving the national election just now, too ? Not just the general, right now... but the "machine" steamrolling the internal opposition in the primaries ? And the internal fight over the Speakers gavel ? Four years of ZERO accomplished... other than fostering lies while playing defense to protect the most corrupt from being exposed ? Unfortunately, Sanders accepted the pay-off offered this cycle... so he's no longer the outsider alternative the aware left wanted to find... who could be relied on to implement real change ?
You see that issue clearly enough already in the "uni-party" states... and particularly in the urban cores.
If you do shut down the gerrymandering... it only entrenches the corruption more firmly... And doing that is an unlikely recipe for unwinding rather than expanding its more pernicious effects...
Consider it a game theory problem... in which the dynamic in result, however distasteful, is a better outcome than you get from disrupting the dynamic and the few benefits it does convey. And, election fraud only exacerbates the problem, disabling the potential to change anything, ever... once the fraud succeeds and perpetuates itself with increasing intensity as required ?
Ending competition... doesn't solve the problem of having a competition that fails to enable change ?
Give me a better option ?
Show me how to restore legitimacy in elections in the urban core ? There, gerrymandering isn't as much about "party control" rather than about protecting boundaries of control for particular corrupt individuals ? Change that... so that there is a real competition possible... with advocacy for improving lives by actually changing how things work locally... and making it all actually matter ?
Defending the corruption we have... to prevent the discomfort of having anything change ? How a benefit ?
Maybe that's a term limits argument... but, of course, if politics is a team sport... shifting its focus from a more individual sport effort to more of a team effort... still not fully addressing the problem ?
A proper re-thinking of the gerrymandering problem might require recognizing, first, that both corruption and its result, in fraud, are significant enough issues that change is required... to prevent systemic failure.
The ossification of systems that deliberately disable their correction mechanisms... ensures their failure. Maybe the failure only occurs as you see in Seattle now... where people just give up and move away... ?
If you don't defeat the corruption and fraud, up front... if you won't insist on full compliance with contracts... including that fundamental contract in terms of our mutual agreed adherence to the rule of law (in this country, the Constitution)... or similarly, everywhere, those same fundamentals understood in terms of the broad social contract and human rights ? Then, what's the point... ?
In the bigger scheme... what sense does it make to "advocate for democracy"... when the CIA controls the outcome of elections everywhere ? But, we're just fine doing business with every tin horn dictator or every totalitarian state... no matter how egregious they are ? The CIA doing that same thing here, to us, now... is a direct violation of U.S. law... which is why they've implausibly "outsourced" the operation to "contractors" ?
Who does that benefit ? Clearly... not the nations whose elections are controlled ? And, not us. Maybe "the American interest"... which clearly isn't focused on the interest of Americans in the urban core or the states in which one party controls everything... while it is run into the ground... also isn't focused on the "American interest" in what happens outside the borders ?
Why did we attack Libya, again ? Because... some NATO allies wanted to... and we got roped into supporting them when they couldn't do it without our support ? Is that what happened ? just more of the same in corruption... making war a profit center... when corrupt Europeans wanted Libya's oil ?
|
