Episode 2: (Hope + Optimism x Work - Pessimism) Learn how this equation of love can help change American politics.
May 07, 2024
Steve Scot
(Hope + Optimism x Work - Pessimism) The first equation in "An Algorithm of Love" starts with hope. Join Steve Scot and discuss how hope and, ultimately, love can bring some order to the chaos of politics.
Steve Scot explains how to replace primary elections with ranked-choice voting. These tools can bring hope by reining in the "Dualocracy" that the Democratic and Republican corporations have created. Steve Scot and discuss how Hope and, ultimately, Love can bring some order to the chaos of politics.
Steve Scot explains how to replace Primary Elections with Ranked-Choice Voting. These tools can bring hope by reining in the "Dualocracy" that the Democratic and Republican Corporations have created.
(Hope + Optimism x Work - Pessimism) The first equation in "An Algorithm of Love" starts with hope. Join Steve Scot and discuss how hope and, ultimately, love can bring some order to the chaos of politics.
Steve Scot explains how to replace primary elections with ranked-choice voting. These tools can bring hope by reining in the "Dualocracy" that the Democratic and Republican corporations have created. Steve Scot and discuss how Hope and, ultimately, Love can bring some order to the chaos of politics.
Steve Scot explains how to replace Primary Elections with Ranked-Choice Voting. These tools can bring hope by reining in the "Dualocracy" that the Democratic and Republican Corporations have created.
Hello America, this is politicsandlovecom and I'm your host, steve Scott, coming to you from Lubbock, texas. In the last show I talked about replacing our current system of primary elections with runoff elections. This time we're going to talk about gerrymandering. It's a dirty little secret of both political parties in America, but before I get started on gerrymandering, I want to touch basis real quick. In my opinion, what laid the foundation for a lot of the partisan politics that have evolved into the dualocracy and the dysfunctional logjam that's in Washington DC right now? I want to emphasize, though, the word evolved, because I really do believe it's evolved, and I say that because of the conspiracy theorists out there that would want to pipe in and think that it was intentional. It's not by design that the United States is involved into this duelocracy.
Speaker 1:
For me, the slow road received a big catalyst with the election of Jimmy Carter. On the surface, it sounds like I'm blaming Jimmy Carter, our 39th president, for being a Democrat, but for the record, I'm not doing that. I remember way back in college my history professor classified Jimmy Carter as the most failed president in the US history. It struck me as particularly honest, as this professor was so liberal that he was radical in his political beliefs, and he was speaking in contemporary terms, because this is when, not long after Carter had been elected and he, you know, even though he's a liberal professor, he saw Carter as the biggest failure ever. So, thanks to this liberal professor, it's always stuck in my mind. So then the question has to be asked how did someone who turned out to be so incompetent get elected in the first place? The answer is that in 1976, no Republican could have won the presidency. That is why a person whose only experience in politics, like Jimmy Carter, was one term as governor and then one term in the Georgia legislature and he became president of the United States In 1976, if you remember, that was the first election since Richard Nixon left office. It was the logic that ushered in the era of duocracy that we're in. It was the logic that ushered in the era of duocracy that we're in, and what I mean by that is is Jimmy Carter getting elected, getting an incompetent person elected to office? It was really a catalyst that got the fighting as we know it going. Before Jimmy Carter, voters and politicians alike would at least pretend to put their conscience and country first. From Jimmy Carter on, votes slowly became cast not as much for a candidate or a party, but they became cast more against a candidate or a party. Now you could have ran a pig for president in 1976, and if the pig were a Democrat, it would have won.
Speaker 1:
Now fast forward to 2023 and focus on the 2024 election. Now ask yourself are people voting for the candidate they love or against the candidate they hate? Do people hate Joe Biden so much they're willing to vote for Donald Trump? Or do they hate Donald Trump so much they're willing to vote for Joe Biden? Now keep this concept of voting with hatred in mind. You'll see how it fits perfectly with the practice of gerrymandering. Remember, that was supposed to be the topic of today, but I had to digress a little bit on the fighting and the arguing and how it started, because, in my humble opinion, that is the backdrop for why gerrymandering is really just evil. Now, remember, politics is so bad that people are voting against a person they hate as opposed to somebody they love and support. So one would ask, would not the duties of these elected officials really, since Jimmy Carter has just been a trajectory of voting against the other guy, voting your hatred, so would not these elected officials, quite possibly, who have been elected with so much hatred. Would not they possibly be willing to take upon the hateful task of gerrymandering and doing it? It's despicable. They know it's wrong. Just the word gerrymandering arouses suspicion. It just has a sound to it that indicates something isn't right.
Speaker 1:
Gerrymandering itself it's not in the Constitution and, like many other things associated with the Democrats and Republicans, it's evolved into a self-serving get them elected, keep them elected and make them rich policy. Let's look at the Democrats and Republicans and how they actually justify this and how they actually justify this. I mean, you got to realize, and I'll tell you in a minute, how long this practice has been going on. But let's look at how the Democrats and Republicans justify this behavior of gerrymandering. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution mandates that congressional districts are mapped out proportionately to the population, populations are determined and maps are drawn based on a census conducted every 10 years. And I might add that the census is mandated by the Constitution too. Now these maps create congressional districts that one would think are drawn up fairly to promote democracy. Okay, now keep in mind we're supposed to be promoting democracy here. No, our hateful politicians have completely turned the whole thing on its head through their gerrymandering.
Speaker 1:
The problem begins and ends with the makers of those maps and of course you know, like I said, the makers of those maps are the Republicans and the Democrats Gerrymandering itself. It takes its name from Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts in 1812. Now, after creating a boundary map designed to keep him and his political buddies in power, the opposition bestowed upon him the name of the map Gerrymandering. Some even said that it looked like a salamander. So, through the press and playing on words, somehow the word gerrymandering evolved from the entire fiasco by combining the governor's last name, jerry, with the word salamander. It's predominantly if it's predominantly a Democratic state, then congressional maps like this are going to be drawn up and they're gerrymandered to create an undemocratic bias that favors the Democratic Party. Now, if it's predominantly a Republican state, then congressional maps most definitely are gerrymandered to create an undemocratic bias favoring the Republican Party. So, in essence, both parties have a license to cheat as long as they are in control.
Speaker 1:
Now let me help put you this in perspective. Many of us are sports fans. Let's imagine a sporting event wherein the home team can rewrite the boundaries of the field of play to complement their team's advantage. We'll take basketball, a basketball game where the home team gets a larger hoop to shoot at? Or how about a football game where the goal line is wider for the home team and narrower for the visiting team? In other words, the home team rigs the field of play by giving the other team more obstacles, thereby this guarantees the home team's victory. That's what gerrymandering is. Whoever's in charge makes the boundaries and makes the rule in their favor. Now, fans going to sporting events like this that are rigged they would just start to lose interest.
Speaker 1:
Now consider this in US politics, about 83% of congressional districts are so gerrymandered that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Did I say that 83%? I must be crazy. It drives me crazy just to think about it. Is this democracy? We heap criticism on Vladimir Putin for amassing 77% in his last Russian elections, yet gerrymandering has allowed Vladimir Putin-type election results in 83% of the US congressional districts. Just like Russian elections are predetermined, so America are US congressional districts. Just like Russian elections are predetermined, so America are US elections. You see, america, the deal is we, the people, are supposed to choose the politicians and, like I said, they've turned the whole thing upside down. Right now we have a system that has evolved into the politicians determining the outcome of their elections. With gerrymandering, the politicians have legally maneuvered their way around we, the people. The politicians have hijacked one of US democracy's greatest slogans we, the People and they've turned that into we, the Politicians. Elections are now decided by they, the politicians.
Speaker 1:
Gerrymandering, as I mentioned, has been around by name since 1812. But the founding politicians figured it out right away. But the founding politicians figured it out right away. Patrick Henry, one of the founding fathers slash politicians, if you got me describing him right after the Constitution became the law of the land, successfully gerrymandered a Virginia congressional district in 1789. Henry's desire was to make sure that James Madison could not win the upcoming election for a congressional seat. As the story goes, madison campaigned hard and overcame the boundaries his political opponent, henry, laid out for him.
Speaker 1:
One more thing has to be remembered from this first gerrymandering experience. If Patrick Henry would have been successful in keeping James Madison out of Congress, congress would not have passed a little thing called the Bill of Rights. Oh, also, james Madison became the president. And just to mention a few of the things the Bill of Rights and James Madison gave us the right to assemble, the right to bear arms and the right to a fair trial. You know all those rights that want to be lawyered sight when they get busted for committing a crime. Crime. Gerrymandering almost cost us really our first ten commandments that we have in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Only God knows what gerrymandering has cost us.
Speaker 1:
Otherwise Gerrymandering it evolved from this Patrick Henry attempt, but through the years they've accumulated more sophisticated ways of really performing this evil and I call it type one and type two gerrymandering. Type one gerrymandering is often called packing In. Packing. The party in charge overloads a congressional district with voters that are like-minded politically. So millions of dollars are spent to figure out where the Democrats live and where the Republicans live. And you guessed it, your friendly neighborhood gerrymandering congressional representative will use that research to make sure they maximize neighborhoods that are full of their kind. Another type of gerrymandering I call type two gerrymandering. It's often called cracking. It's often called cracking In cracking.
Speaker 1:
The party in charge attempts to isolate voters in a congressional district to strengthen their base of support. Here our friendly neighborhood gerrymandering congressional representative divides large concentrations of the other party. So a district with 80% of a majority can be divided and become two districts of 40%. You then add in an area with lots of people who think and vote your way and you have an official congressional district designed by your hatefully elected, friendly, everyday member of commerce. Friendly, everyday member of commerce.
Speaker 1:
Now, keep in mind that the same political operators that draw up congressional boundaries based on that census are the same political operators that control the census. Let me repeat that the same people that do the gerrymandering, they're politicians. They're also in charge of the census, and the census is the basis of which they make these boundaries. So they not only manipulate the data, but they control how the data is collected. This is done under the Secretary of Commerce, who's appointed by the President, and it's administered by the Department of Commerce, and it's administered by the Department of Commerce. This means that determined political outcomes. Here's a imagine. Imagine if you're an alien and somebody's going to describe this to you. You know this is how political outcomes are determined. The census determines political outcomes by using a politician and then assigns more politicians to make political boundaries. Is there any doubt that gerrymandering isn't political? What's wrong with this picture?
Speaker 1:
In psychological terms, gerrymandering presents what they call in behavioral psychology as learned helplessness. For those of you who can remember back in Psychology 101, you remember, learned helplessness is a result of a person refusing to participate in a process when faced with an impossible obstacle. In other words, people just quit. Trying sometimes To demonstrate learned helplessness, psychologists placed rats in a cage. Half the rat's cage was wired to provide an electrical shock. The food and water of the rat were placed on the side of the cage that received the electric shock. In a very short time, the rats knew that trying to eat or drink would get them shocked. Even when the electric shock was turned off, the rats refused to eat or drink. They'd give up simply on eating and drinking. They learned to be helpless. Unless removed from the cage, the rats would have chosen death rather than attempt to eat or drink, like those rats in a cage refusing to eat or drink.
Speaker 1:
America, we too have that attitude about our elections. I know myself. I just flat out haven't been able to vote sometimes because I can't get off work, but that's a whole other story. In this case, with the gerrymandering, we know what the outcome. Most of the elections are going to be, so voter participation is dwindling, like the rats who refuse to eat. So this is unlike when I, when I was younger and I couldn't get off work from a job and I couldn't get out and vote. This is people just saying forget it. I'm not even going to try to take part in the process. Why Because of gerrymandering have I painted gerrymandering as a miserable picture? It is. I think it's a sign of weak character, however, to offer up problems and offer no solution. I do have a solution. There's four parts to it. Any one of these four it wouldn't make a good solution by itself, but together they can end the insanity of gerrymandering as we know it, and one of you listening may have further solutions to solve the problems.
Speaker 1:
So, first of all, enough computer programs can be used to deal with a map and geometry of making those maps. You don't need some backroom politician creating these maps. There's enough computer technology to do it. It's laughable that today politicians would cling to the practice. This shows you how arrogant politicians are. They're clinging to a 250-year-old practice and they don't even take advantage, to take advantage of computer and other modern mathematic discoveries. What I'm saying is is no more hatefully elected, friendly, everyday gerrymandering member of Congress wringing their fingers to rig political boundaries? This invention called a computer can probably produce better results for a person than people in Congress.
Speaker 1:
Now. Second, appoint independent commissions of nonpartisans to oversee the process. I have to admit that nonpartisans will be hard to find, since most people affiliate with one party or the other. Every state has a secretary of state that's in charge. Have the secretary of state appoint the committee, Put the recommended boundaries up for the vote of the people and give the entire state electorate the final decision, not the politicians. Now, third, limit campaigning to only three months before an election. Three months is enough time to educate people and spare them the drama of what's become a two-year marathon every presidential election, and then it takes us another two years to recover from that two-year election period.
Speaker 1:
Fourth, enact ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting is a value of some kind to every vote cast. Just one election is required and no primary season can start now, which is it's turned into a two-year event anyway. If five people are running, then voters simply rank their choice of the voters, one through five. If there's a winner with 50% or better, the election is over. If there is no winner, then the lowest receiver of votes is dropped and everything is tabulated Again. If there is a winner over 50%, they're declared and the election is over. They're declared and the election is over. If necessary, tabulating is computed. Only when there are two candidates from which a winner is declared. Voters will have to cast votes once.
Speaker 1:
Another caveat of the system is that candidates can no longer pander to extreme ideologies of their party, and let me explain the math on that. Currently, all a candidate has to do, all they have to work for and earn, is to represent about 20% of the voting electorate. Yes, in America, if they work the system, they only have to convince 20% of the people. And here's how it works. Let's do a case study.
Speaker 1:
Let's look at the 2016 presidential campaign. It was the last time two candidates were running without an incumbent. The Republican candidate for president was Donald Trump. He received 44.9% of the Republican vote, and that same year, hillary Clinton received 55.2% of the Democrat vote. Now here's where you have to pay attention.
Speaker 1:
The numbers get profound here really fast, and here's how really more hatred slips into our electoral process. Yes, donald Trump won 44.9% of something, but that only represents about 22% of all of America. Hillary Clinton in 2006 only had a mandate of about 28% of the American electorate electorate. Trump's 22% and Clinton's 28% is further diluted when you factor in a recent Gallup poll. That illustrates a huge trend. Most people in America about 46%, according to Gallup poll, recent Gallup poll now don't even see themselves as a Democrat or Republican. Don't even see themselves as a Democrat or Republican.
Speaker 1:
So democracy in America has turned into a system where the voting boundaries are so obviously rigged that they've carried the derogatory term, the name gerrymandering, around for a couple hundred years now. Actually, it's going on about yeah, it's going on for about 200 years now and, as a result, a person only has to convince roughly about 25% of the people to vote for them through this primary system that the Democrats and the Republicans have rigged. So really, the primary system winner 83% of the time in these districts is predetermined by the Democrats and the Republicans, who now themselves aren't even a majority. So in this great democracy of ours, you're to vote in a boundary that is obviously rigged, so you're starting out in a rigged election and then you're supposed to go forward and determine a winner. We've got to fix it, america. Those are some suggestions on how Our system is broken. Let's fix it. God bless America are some suggestions on how Our system is broken. Let's fix it. God bless America, and God bless you. Thank you.