Crémieux Profile picture
Aug 26 24 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Gerrymandering is the death of centrism in America.

The more districts are uncompetitive, the less hope there is for moderate candidates, and the less value there is in moving to the center.

Gerrymandering means a more divisive and polarized America, with poorer governance🧵 Image
A recent paper in the American Economic Review made the value of competitive elections clear using data from America and France.

Looking at American elections, when candidates are in their primaries, they're more radical. When they compete with the other party, they moderate. Image
The same thing is observed in France, where the multi-round elections come with extensive moderation for some, slight moderation for others, and essentially no moderation for those who are already at the nation's center. Image
You can see this result replicated in America using the campaign contributions of donors.

As candidates move to the general, they seek out more moderate donors. Image
You can also see this in candidate speeches.

When they're talking to their party, they're focused on their party's priorities. When they're talking across the aisle, they talk to the other party's priorities. Image
Another way you can see this in speeches is by looking at their complexity.

Candidates who appear a little dull tend to move their speech quality up a bit, whereas candidates who appear too brainy for the electorate try to appear less nerdy. Image
The complexity finding also replicates in France.

Notice that in that key second round of elections, people are talking a lot more 'normally' to the electorate. Image
A some-times frustrating part of this moderation is that candidates change their focus on topics

This is a necessary part of appearing to moderate, but it can mean candidates focusing on too few or too many topics relative to your personal desires

This also replicates in France Image
How candidates choose to converge is similar in both countries as well.

The moderation shift is towards the positions of the winning opponent, rather than to people who fell out of the primary or to other runner-ups that failed.

People converge to their opponents! Image
This is key.

If the electorate demands a far-left candidate, the far-right candidate will move even further left; if they demand a far-right candidate, the far-left candidate will move even further right.

There's an inherent moderating tendency to competitive elections!Image
But there are tendencies that militate against moderating.

For example, voters punish candidates they perceive as "flip-flopping"—changing from one position to a seemingly or actually contradictory one.Image
There's something to this.

When you look at candidate roll call votes, the tendency to moderate when facing an election is small.

If you've paid attention, you'll notice that it's fully of token gestures and leads to claims of bipartisanship that are obviously untrue. Image
Politicians also, famously, do not keep their promises.

It's been a surprise to see Trump sticking to his 2024 campaign motto of "Promises made, promises kept" for even ridiculously silly promises, like recognizing a group of African Americans as an official native tribe. Image
The primary way competitive elections moderate and depolarize is therefore not through actually moderating candidates.

It's through selection effects.

If you must be a moderate to win, then only moderates will win; if any old partisan can win, internal party politics dominate.Image
One of the key political issues in recent decades has been that Congress has empowered the President by withdrawing from its duty to write laws clearly and forcefully, to regulate, to provide oversight, and to just generally govern.

Instead, they entrust power to the agencies. Image
Agencies have gained extensive regulatory powers. Under Chevron, opinions of petty bureaucrats even effectively had the force of law.

If Congress is to legislate again and exercise its powers well, it'll need to be depolarized. Partisan Congressmen will not agree to a fix. Image
Even when the parties weren't as starkly opposed as now, they ceded enormous power to the administrative state.

With things becoming even worse, it's not clear Congress will ever act in the interest of retaining and exercising its power. Partisan Presidencies will run roughshod. Image
If you care about getting Congress to function properly again and America getting out of its legislative funk, you need to be proposing and promoting strategies to combat gerrymandering.

Not only that, but you should promote both party's centers to depolarize Congress again.Image
Promoting good governance will be a bipartisan thing so long as Americans live under a two-party system (which is far better than a one-party one!).

If you're a Democrat or Republican partisan, you de facto support Congressional dysfunction.

That has not been good for America.Image
Similarly, if you support things like cancellations and politically-motivated prosecutions, you are de facto supporting Congressional dysfunction.

You support pushing people to the point where moderation disappears, revenge is desired, and extremity remains on the table.Image
If you want more peace, more normality, and more and better governance, you should want to end gerrymandering—you should want competition.

Sources:

aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…

cremieux.xyz/p/voters-dont-…
P.S. I am aware that the electoral benefits of campaign moderation have declined. That's irrelevant to the findings discussed above and to my broader point, in no small part because it's based on falling competition

Anyway, moderates are more electable: split-ticket.org/2025/03/17/are…
P.P.S. I am also aware of the rallying effect of ideologically extreme candidates when it comes to their own party's base.

This fails at the national level (thank god), and becomes increasingly irrelevant under gerrymandering, so it's not a legitimate quibble.
P.P.P.S. The requirement in the Voting Rights Act to have racially gerrymandered districts to ensure minority representation directly encourages this by forcing blue districts into existence, and turning surrounding districts more red.

Less competition!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

Aug 28
People so strongly want to believe groups like Italians were considered non-White when they arrived in the U.S. that they will conflate being treated poorly with being treated like they're another race.

Every time I've mentioned this, I've gotten that same asinine response. Image
The people who make this argument seem to desperately want people to think that groups can become White and that the conflicts of the past were all racial.

But no.

The Irish, for example, were disliked more for being corrupt Catholics and public drunks than for being non-White.
This is from my latest article. Notably, I wrote that blurb and then people immediately commented with the wordplay angle that mistreatment is equivalent to being considered another race.

cremieux.xyz/p/european-imm…
Read 5 tweets
Aug 28
Every governmental institution of American society has always considered groups like Italians and Irishmen to be White.

Yet, there are some academics who insist otherwise.

They are wrong, and I'll provide several examples to illustrate that. For one, Jim Crow: Image
For two, the Union Army: Image
For three, the Confederate Army! Image
Read 6 tweets
Aug 27
The gender wage gap is mostly about married men doing one helluva job earning more than everyone else. Image
Part of the bump is because they tend to work more than everyone else. Image
Another part is because they tend to get paid more per hour. That might be linked to working more! Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 27
The president of the American Medical Association exaggerated the trans adolescent suicide rate by a factor of at least 3,846.

Getting it wrong by one order of magnitude would be egregious.

Being off by almost four orders of magnitude is just the worst sort of cynical lying. Image
The rate is still high, and worth worrying about at 13 per 100,000! That's almost 5x the rate for the adolescent population as a whole!

You do not need to shame parents with the lie that their kid has a fair coin's odds of suicide. That's just evil; it's emotional blackmailing.
The suicide rates for prisoners in Sachsenhausen were 111/100k for straight prisoners and 1167/100k for gay prisoners. Even with a fudge factor, you cannot get to Mukkamala's claimed rate.

He wants you to believe that being trans is worse than being in a Nazi concentration camp. Image
Read 5 tweets
Aug 26
Retatrutide is more effective at generating weight loss and other benefits for the people who take it, but there does seem to be a cardiac safety signal.

This could potentially be important *for people who have preexisting atrial fibrillation and CVD.* Image
Keep in mind, only one of these events became serious and the rest just passed: "Reported cardiac arrhythmias were mild to moderate in severity with the exception of one severe adverse event."

The reason for this signal seems to be a dose-dependent increase in heart rate.
Increasing heart rate could help to explain the added benefits of the drug for weight loss.

But I have doubts. Why? Because the heart rate increase was linearly dose-dependent, but weight loss tapped out at 8mg. Image
Read 7 tweets
Aug 25
The World Health Organization frequently adopts irresponsible positions.

For example, they recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners (NSS)—zero-calorie stuff like aspartame.

Why?

Because of non-causal evidence. But all the causally-informative evidence said it was good! Image
On the one hand, you have causal evidence screaming about one direction of effects that are theoretically expected. Among this evidence, there's one bad sign, but it's marginally significant (p = 0.012) among a bajillion effects examined.

AND THEY GOT THE EFFECT SIZE WRONG.Image
See that highlighted 95% CI? It looks really precise, no?

If you go to the actual study, you'll see it's about switching from sugary to sugar-free hot cocoa, and the effect they report is actually 0.

Where did they get that estimate?! They don't say, but it went in their meta! Image
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(