[steego]

> But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone.

I understand the point that people shouldn't feel complacent, but what else is Team Pepsi supposed to do if they don't get support from congress?

[MrZongle2]

Campaign to get obstructionist members of Congress replaced. That's a pretty unsatisfying answer, but that's the only legal means to do it right.

IMO the Executive Order/fiat by committee approach is detrimental in the long run. Sure, stuff gets done...but once the goal has been reached everybody moves on without much thought about the long-term.

It's like those home renovation shows where they have a pizza budget but champagne tastes, and the designer/builder figures out a clever way to get a particular look for cheap. The unveil the house, the owners are thrilled about how it looks, and the show ends on a happy note. They never go back 6-12 months later, and talk about how the cheap facade peeled away or the sharp edges on the hastily-built cabinetry, etc etc.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Campaign to get obstructionist members of Congress replaced. That's a pretty unsatisfying answer, but that's the only legal means to do it right.

The problem is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered as fuck, making it quite often impossible to have a genuine two-party contest within electoral politics. I mean, are you suggesting Team Pepsi run in Team Coke's Congressional primaries as moderates rather than contesting a general election they basically can't win?

A system in which Congresspeople get to pick their favorite voters isn't democratic.

[MrZongle2]

"The problem is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered as fuck, making it quite often impossible to have a genuine two-party contest within electoral politics. I mean, are you suggesting Team Pepsi run in Team Coke's Congressional primaries as moderates rather than contesting a general election they basically can't win?"

Congressional districts are ultimately decided by the individual states, (theoretically) based upon Census data as I understand it. (A correction is welcome if I've misunderstood)

Given that, it seems like if you want to fix the US Congress, work must begin at the individual state level to ensure gerrymandering is eliminated. This would likely involve not only pushing for state representatives to support this but electing governors (in cases where the governor has a say in districting issues).

At first this seems like a "it's turtles all the way down" kind of problem but I think voter education campaigns (as opposed to the voter-insulting or voter-shaming that seems to be standard for the national level these days) would probably be the most effective way to address it. Regardless of party, I think most Americans are in favor of fairness and equality.

Trouble is, when a party wins (and thus is in the best position to fix the issue), this isn't seen as a problem worth addressing. That change, too, needs to come from within.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Congressional districts are ultimately decided by the individual states, (theoretically) based upon Census data as I understand it. (A correction is welcome if I've misunderstood)

Theoretically based on Census data, but ultimately at the near-unrestricted discretion of whoever holds the state legislature at the time.

>Trouble is, when a party wins (and thus is in the best position to fix the issue), this isn't seen as a problem worth addressing. That change, too, needs to come from within.

Yep. It's taken lawsuits in some places: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89402. This case could end up before the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court then votes their own partisan preferences, which they often do these days, it will be... fucked-up.

[seanp2k2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Again here just sticking to a popular vote would help on the state-level.