When I was a small boy, hey, I listened to quite a few the band "The Stranglers". They had a political song “Nuclear Device” in which at first the mysterious conviction “I don’t truly care about which way you vote, origin my germanander works so fine” came out.
You can imagine how much this conviction intrigued a teenager in a communist country trying to realize the phenomenon of Western democracy! Today, in wikipedia, you can see the first drawing depicting the “Salamander of politician Gerry” and for Piano subscribers we have a cymesik, or origin scan – pages “Boston Gazette” from 1812!
I am writing about this salamander in today's Christmas. As veterans of local blogdyscuits remember, I have quite a few sympathy for the thought of JOW.
The Polish organization strategy does not suit me. For 20 years, I have only voted "against someone" and "minor evil" (or I am not going to elections at all). If there was a shadow of a reason to believe that Jow would correct it, I would support this idea.
I've been looking for a fewer years of excuses, on my own, just to have my own opinion. Thus, from a cautious sympathizer of JOW, I turned into a declared opponent (please, another example of how incorrect those who say that I cannot be persuaded to change my head is just a substance of good arguments).
I have cited any of these arguments in today’s article. The most crucial is JOW's vulnerability to legal manipulation. Whoever sets the boundaries of the constituency creates the consequence of the election. To divide Poland so that it belongs to the PO and PSL, is truly depressingly simple.
Gerrymandering in American democracy was first utilized in 1788 (the oldest documented case). The name appeared in 1812. It is applicable until today, delight see this amazing map of constituency in Travis County Texas.
There is no applicable way to halt it, due to the fact that the boundaries of the districts are defined by politicians presently in power – who will then compete in these districts. How do I forbid it? How do you prove that boundaries have been changed to manipulate choices? There's always an authoritative reason.
The consequence is “safe seats”, or districts where the consequence of the election is known long before the election. The appointment of individual by the dominant organization here is called in the US “tantamount to selection“ – “logically equivalent to choice”.
Even Korwin-Mikke would yet win any election if the Democrats brought him up in Manhattan. specified a candidate simply cannot lose.
In my text, I gave any concrete examples. After the shortcuts, there is only an example of the constituency that presently represents Nancy Pelosi in legislature (although this information fell out). Since 1949, only Democrats have won there, Republicans don't even run anymore, for what.
Even more interesting to me is the Knoxville territory in Tennessee, where Republicans have been winning the election continuously since 1857. It is all the more paradoxical that Democrats frequently exercise local power in Knoxville itself – but in parliamentary elections they are voted out by their Republican village around the city. It would be adequate to change the boundaries of the districts to make the results different – but what would the Republican state authorities do it for?
It's the same in Britain. As estimated in 2010, 382 out of 650 constituency (59%) is "safe seats". The Tories can cool off the run in Birmingham's working neighborhoods, as can the Labourers in London Kensington. In the United States, “safe seats” besides constitute majority.
I realize the full deceptive charm of JOW, due to the fact that in explanation it may indeed seem that this frees politics from organization dominance of bureaucracy. However, the bare facts say that in practice it is different. And I believe in facts, not theories.
