Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arizona Continues To Suck (Banning Public Sector Unions Edition!)

enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
edited January 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
So Arizona has a system of redistricting that has a commission draw up the new map. This commission is made up of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one registered independent, to theoretically prevent gerrymandering for partisan gain (gerrymandering to satisfy VRA/other racial or tribal splits required by state law is still allowed, thus the current 2nd district). Arizona gained a seat in the recent census and things had to be re-drawn. The panel came up with a system that would essentially create 4 GOP districts, 2 Democratic districts, and 3 toss up districts, while doing a better job of representing Latinos. Sounds like a winner, right? Especially for the Republicans.

You are not Jan Brewer, the Governor. Last week she was threatening to impeach (Republicans control the state Senate 21-9) the members of the panel, appointing a new one, and demanding a more GOP friendly plan. This week she started to go through with that plan and the state Senate impeached the independent chairwoman of the committee.

Rigging the process is fun!

enlightenedbum on
Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
«13456713

Posts

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    I dunno man. With all the other nefarious shit that republican-led state governments are doing lately, gerrymandering barely even phases me any more. It is pretty funny that she'd impeach the committee for not gerrymandering hard enough, though.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    It should faze you. Gerrymandering is pretty much impossible to undo, unlike voter restrictions and pretending Roe vs. Wade never happened.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Yeah I know it's bad, I'm not disputing that. I'm just sort of numb to it after things like voter suppression, and kicking out all undocumented immigrants from Alabama.

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    Is it too late to sell Arizona to Mexico?

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Yep, not even close to the top of the list for gerrymandering shenanigans. Hard to top the Texas GOP who, two years after redistricting, finally gained enough control of the state government and just decided the state had changed enough in 2 years to warrant a do-over.

    Tomanta on
    camo_sig2.png
  • AlectharAlecthar Alan Shore We're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered User regular
    Is it too late to sell Arizona to Mexico?

    Honestly I'm willing to just roll back that entire Mexican-American War dealie. And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

    We'll just have to find a different state full of hyper-religious idiots to draw our presidents from. How do we feel about Utah?

    steam_sig.png
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Alecthar wrote:
    Is it too late to sell Arizona to Mexico?

    Honestly I'm willing to just roll back that entire Mexican-American War dealie. And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

    We'll just have to find a different state full of hyper-religious idiots to draw our presidents from. How do we feel about Utah?

    Hey now, California is pretty great coastal California is pretty great.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote:

    The fact that the governor fucking tried it anyway is a fucking crying shame. Thank God the court made the right decision but Jesus jumped-up Christ, it never should have HAD to make a decision.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Alecthar wrote:
    And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

    Point of fact: Texas was its own country. It's the only nation to assimilated into the lower 48, and it's the only state to enter by treaty.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Alecthar wrote:
    And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

    Point of fact: Texas was its own country. It's the only nation to assimilated into the lower 48, and it's the only state to enter by treaty.

    California was an independent state for about a month. It's where you get the flag:

    nunst0006.gif

    You could also argue that the Confederacy was an assimilated nation, since it was independent for a few years.

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    Vermont was an independent republic for several years as well.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Alecthar wrote:
    And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

    Point of fact: Texas was its own country. It's the only nation to assimilated into the lower 48, and it's the only state to enter by treaty.
    California was an independent state for about a month. It's where you get the flag:

    nunst0006.gif

    You could also argue that the Confederacy was an assimilated nation, since it was independent for a few years.
    Here's where Atomic Ross replies with "no, it wasn't a nation when it was assimilated," just so that he can be technically right. You'll also notice he restricted it to the continental United States, both of which he needs to do since he's been corrected before.

    However, all of that is pretty much bullshit. If Texas wants to secede, I'll circulate petitions myself. I can think of few things that would do more to better the nation as a whole than the secession of Texas. The end of Rick Perry's candidacy for President being mere gravy.

    Thanatos on
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Alecthar wrote:
    And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

    Point of fact: Texas was its own country. It's the only nation to assimilated into the lower 48, and it's the only state to enter by treaty.

    California was an independent state for about a month. It's where you get the flag:

    nunst0006.gif

    You could also argue that the Confederacy was an assimilated nation, since it was independent for a few years.

    No major nation recognized the CSA as independent, though. The US government at the time recognized the Texan Republic so that it could annex it - it would kind of be like if the US encouraged Quebec to fight a war of independence from Canada so that they could be immediately annexed.

  • DraygoDraygo Registered User regular
    Heh this is nothing. At least democrats have a voice in a republican state. So the panel drew up a plan that you think is fair, governer oversteps her bounds and gets shot down by the courts. Working as intended. (Although Brewer should have just accepted the plan, making a fuss out of nothing).

    In Illinios, the democrats get to draw it up behind closed doors, get it passed by the democrat house and senate and signed by the democrat governer.

    One of their favorite things to do is draw a squigily line from the suburbs of chicago into the city that just so happens to include a particluar represenatives house in the suburb.

    Redistricting isnt about voters, its about politicians choosing voters. Merging opposing parties into same districts and drawing out others. Also what is with your insistance on labeling a group of people you don't agree with 'evil', i can see it if your labeling a group with a stated goal to kill people or a particular group of people. How does calling a state evil foster debate?

    Gerrymandering isn't unique to one party, its a regular practice that I find disgusting. It undermines the very electoral system to its core.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Draygo wrote:
    Gerrymandering isn't unique to one party, its a regular practice that I find disgusting. It undermines the very electoral system to its core.

    I agree that it is not unique to one party, but any time you hear about one party or the other fighting against measures to ensure more fairness in the redistricting system, one side stands out by a wide margin when it come to things like lines being drawn by independent agencies/commissions.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Illinois is a fun case too because the Democratic gerrymandering is fixing a Republican gerrymandering project that managed an impressive disparity in terms of votes and actual representation. Something like 12-7 Republicans in the House with whatever large margin Democrats won the vote with.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Well considering one side is trying to regress america into religious serfdom and the other side wants universal healthcare and reinvestment into infrastructure. I'd be perfectly fine with Democrats redistricting republicans out of their crazy houses.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    However, all of that is pretty much bullshit. If Texas wants to secede, I'll circulate petitions myself. I can think of few things that would do more to better the nation as a whole than the secession of Texas. The end of Rick Perry's candidacy for President being mere gravy.

    Agreed. I'd love to have a legitimate reason for leaving. Maybe go somewhere with nicer weather, like Colorado or Vermont. Or to England with the wife.

  • ChimeraChimera Monster girl Tulsa, OKRegistered User regular
    There is a great article on CNN about this right now. Really at the very least it would be nice to see a system in place like what Iowa has. They are most likely the most non-biased in their system of redistricting their state. Here is a link to the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/politics/gerrymandering/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

    mh7bxh.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Chimera wrote:
    There is a great article on CNN about this right now. Really at the very least it would be nice to see a system in place like what Iowa has. They are most likely the most non-biased in their system of redistricting their state. Here is a link to the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/politics/gerrymandering/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
    It makes it a lot easier to draw districts like that when your state is 92% white.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

    That is never ever going to happen, at least, if the current(?) debacle with the closed-source voting machines tells us anything.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

    It is akin to the knapsack problem, but with added dimensions for more complexity. Technically it isn't very simple and that is assuming we absolutely hate some of the intentional uses of gerrymandering (majority minority districts). That's ignoring the impossible task to discuss this without having peoples eyes completely roll over in their heads.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    Oh you crazy Americans. I'm a bit of a fan of politics, but gerrymandering is pretty much unheard of here in the UK. Here, constituencies (your districts) are decided by a non-partisan commission who divide the voting population by the number of seats. Each seat should be within 5% of that value.

    They draw up basic boundaries and then individuals and political parties provide their views. By magic, shit seems to work out.

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

    I blogged one possible way to do things back in September: eliminate all the districts. Like, all of them. Including state lines. 435-seat jungle election. My figuring is that, while things won't be totally geographically perfect as far as representation, it'll come close enough, and besides, the way we think nowadays, we could really stand to distance ourselves from the 'everybody sucks but my guy' thought process. They'd all be your guy.

    The basic way you'd operate it- I actually kind of altered my methods here since the post for ease of operation; the post is still useful for arguing how I think this way would work in practice- is that you'd have everyone that wanted to run register. No primary, we go right to the general. After the registration deadline, all registered candidates are assigned a number in alphabetical order. When you go into the booth, there are no actual names on the ballot. That'd be insane. Instead, you'll have those bubble fill-in things like you see on standardized tests. You'll fill in the registration numbers of your five favorite candidates (catalog provided so you can tell who's who). The top 435 candidates, nationwide, go to the House.

    The hope is that trying to game things your way, attack an opponent, or even conduct who's-in-who's-out polling will get so utterly clusterfucked by the sheer numbers that it's easier to just run your race and hope for the best.

    Gosling on
    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Gosling wrote:
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

    I blogged one possible way to do things back in September: eliminate all the districts. Like, all of them. Including state lines. 435-seat jungle election. My figuring is that, while things won't be totally geographically perfect as far as representation, it'll come close enough, and besides, the way we think nowadays, we could really stand to distance ourselves from the 'everybody sucks but my guy' thought process. They'd all be your guy.

    The basic way you'd operate it- I actually kind of altered my methods here since the post for ease of operation; the post is still useful for arguing how I think this way would work in practice- is that you'd have everyone that wanted to run register. No primary, we go right to the general. After the registration deadline, all registered candidates are assigned a number in alphabetical order. When you go into the booth, there are no actual names on the ballot. That'd be insane. Instead, you'll have those bubble fill-in things like you see on standardized tests. You'll fill in the registration numbers of your five favorite candidates (catalog provided so you can tell who's who). The top 435 candidates, nationwide, go to the House.

    The hope is that trying to game things your way, attack an opponent, or even conduct who's-in-who's-out polling will get so utterly clusterfucked by the sheer numbers that it's easier to just run your race and hope for the best.

    That sounds like it would be really, really confusing for the voters. I'd have to decide- do I vote for the person I actually like the best, even though he's polling really high? Or do I vote strategically for someone who's on the edge, even if I don't like them as much?

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Oh you crazy Americans. I'm a bit of a fan of politics, but gerrymandering is pretty much unheard of here in the UK. Here, constituencies (your districts) are decided by a non-partisan commission who divide the voting population by the number of seats. Each seat should be within 5% of that value.

    They draw up basic boundaries and then individuals and political parties provide their views. By magic, shit seems to work out.

    US election law is a little wonky, in that if there were two districts whose populations were 5% apart, the lines would have to be redrawn. The Supreme Court has basically said that the populations need to be the same (since being in a more populous district means your vote is "worth less" than if you were in a less populous district).

    camo_sig2.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Gosling wrote:
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

    I blogged one possible way to do things back in September: eliminate all the districts. Like, all of them. Including state lines. 435-seat jungle election. My figuring is that, while things won't be totally geographically perfect as far as representation, it'll come close enough, and besides, the way we think nowadays, we could really stand to distance ourselves from the 'everybody sucks but my guy' thought process. They'd all be your guy.

    The basic way you'd operate it- I actually kind of altered my methods here since the post for ease of operation; the post is still useful for arguing how I think this way would work in practice- is that you'd have everyone that wanted to run register. No primary, we go right to the general. After the registration deadline, all registered candidates are assigned a number in alphabetical order. When you go into the booth, there are no actual names on the ballot. That'd be insane. Instead, you'll have those bubble fill-in things like you see on standardized tests. You'll fill in the registration numbers of your five favorite candidates (catalog provided so you can tell who's who). The top 435 candidates, nationwide, go to the House.

    The hope is that trying to game things your way, attack an opponent, or even conduct who's-in-who's-out polling will get so utterly clusterfucked by the sheer numbers that it's easier to just run your race and hope for the best.

    Honestly, that was one of your goosier ideas. Jungle primaries have always struck me as legally problematic, and attempt to solve a non-existent problem. And with an open system, more rural areas will wind up getting absolutely fucked in terms of representation. Not to mention that you'll make voting blocs stronger, not weaker - in your system, courting specific large religious groups will become a successful strategy.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    However, all of that is pretty much bullshit. If Texas wants to secede, I'll circulate petitions myself. I can think of few things that would do more to better the nation as a whole than the secession of Texas. The end of Rick Perry's candidacy for President being mere gravy.

    Agreed. I'd love to have a legitimate reason for leaving. Maybe go somewhere with nicer weather, like Colorado or Vermont. Or to England with the wife.

    I think this is the only time in the history of the world that someone has mentioned moving to England for nicer weather.

    But why is everyone always ragging on Texas to secede? Of all the red states they're the best, and the only one that's a positive contribution to the federal government monetarily. We should be kicking out Mississippi and Alabama and all those other trash states.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    Look at things now. You've got maybe five or six blocs at most within the two parties. One majority-party bloc positions themselves properly- the Blue Dogs, the Tea Party- and they can in effect hijack control of the country on their own. Because hey, why court when you can threaten?

    About how many blocs do you think could come out of a jungle system? Because unless one of them is really, really big, odds are they're less likely to be able to steer things completely their way all 'do what we say or the country burns'. I'm imagining something closer to the format where one bloc gets the gavel but not a majority and then they'd have to work with several other blocs because they can't just unilaterally decide things on their own. They'd have to, you know, actually talk to each other for once in their life.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Cervetus wrote:
    But why is everyone always ragging on Texas to secede? Of all the red states they're the best, and the only one that's a positive contribution to the federal government monetarily. We should be kicking out Mississippi and Alabama and all those other trash states.

    Because Texas always runs its mouth about how awesome it is, when it's really kind of crap, it's just surrounded by things so much crappier that it looks like a shining example in a sea of turds.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Gosling wrote:
    Look at things now. You've got maybe five or six blocs at most within the two parties. One majority-party bloc positions themselves properly- the Blue Dogs, the Tea Party- and they can in effect hijack control of the country on their own. Because hey, why court when you can threaten?

    About how many blocs do you think could come out of a jungle system? Because unless one of them is really, really big, odds are they're less likely to be able to steer things completely their way all 'do what we say or the country burns'. I'm imagining something closer to the format where one bloc gets the gavel but not a majority and then they'd have to work with several other blocs because they can't just unilaterally decide things on their own. They'd have to, you know, actually talk to each other for once in their life.

    You might want to Google Shas, Gos. Because that's a pretty good illustration of the problem with your system.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Cervetus wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    However, all of that is pretty much bullshit. If Texas wants to secede, I'll circulate petitions myself. I can think of few things that would do more to better the nation as a whole than the secession of Texas. The end of Rick Perry's candidacy for President being mere gravy.
    Agreed. I'd love to have a legitimate reason for leaving. Maybe go somewhere with nicer weather, like Colorado or Vermont. Or to England with the wife.
    I think this is the only time in the history of the world that someone has mentioned moving to England for nicer weather.

    But why is everyone always ragging on Texas to secede? Of all the red states they're the best, and the only one that's a positive contribution to the federal government monetarily. We should be kicking out Mississippi and Alabama and all those other trash states.
    Because Texas has the largest Republican congressional delegation, the largest margin between their Republican and Democratic delegation, has a metric fuckton of blue dogs in their Democratic delegation, houses most of the big oil billionaires who are fucking up the country, has some fucking retarded people they keep sending up for President, and is fucking up everybody else's textbooks. Not to mention that most of the people from there are complete jackoffs.

    Thanatos on
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Thanatos wrote:
    Not to mention that most of the people from there are complete jackoffs.

    I hope you're not talking about Meat Loaf.

    Atomika on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Texas has the largest Republican congressional delegation, the largest margin between their Republican and Democratic delegation
    Not anymore. Texas is 23-11, but Florida is 19-6.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Because Texas has the largest Republican congressional delegation, the largest margin between their Republican and Democratic delegation, has a metric fuckton of blue dogs in their Democratic delegation, houses most of the big oil billionaires who are fucking up the country, has some fucking retarded people they keep sending up for President, and is fucking up everybody else's textbook. Not to mention that most of the people from there are complete jackoffs.

    It also has the LBJ Space Center, which would be a considerable loss to NASA if Texas decided to secede.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Oh you crazy Americans. I'm a bit of a fan of politics, but gerrymandering is pretty much unheard of here in the UK. Here, constituencies (your districts) are decided by a non-partisan commission who divide the voting population by the number of seats. Each seat should be within 5% of that value.

    They draw up basic boundaries and then individuals and political parties provide their views. By magic, shit seems to work out.

    Remember the UK used to have a problem with Rotten boroughs, which had to be fixed by much campaigning and a new law: Reform Act 1832. Democracy is a process and needs to be fought for.

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Gosling wrote:
    Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

    I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

    Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it
    Snip.

    That sounds like it would be really, really confusing for the voters. I'd have to decide- do I vote for the person I actually like the best, even though he's polling really high? Or do I vote strategically for someone who's on the edge, even if I don't like them as much?

    The way I would do it would be to invert the Primary/General order and then vote by party.

    Nationwide you would register and vote for one party. 500 chamber seats divided up per percentage of the vote: If your party got 2 percent of the national popular vote you were putting 10 people into office.

    THEN you would hold your primary, and the top 10 politicians selected by all the people nationwide who voted their party in the primary would get those seats.

    This would ensure that even those parties that only get .2 percent of the national popular vote still get representation in the chamber. It would also remove the gaming of the system which goes on now by registering opposite party in the primary and voting bad candidates.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Primaries play for the fringe, the General plays for the middle.


    No way do I want the General Primary going to whoever plays the fringe. You'd end up with presidents like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and H. Ross Perot.

«13456713
Sign In or Register to comment.