The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Arizona Continues To Suck (Banning Public Sector Unions Edition!)
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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!
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!
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
enlightenedbum on
0
Posts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/arizona-s-high-court-overturns-brewer-s-firing-of-redistricting-panel-head.html
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?
Battle.net
Hey now, California is pretty great coastal California is pretty great.
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.
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:
You could also argue that the Confederacy was an assimilated nation, since it was independent for a few years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
pleasepaypreacher.net
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 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.
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.
They draw up basic boundaries and then individuals and political parties provide their views. By magic, shit seems to work out.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
You might want to Google Shas, Gos. Because that's a pretty good illustration of the problem with your system.
I hope you're not talking about Meat Loaf.
It also has the LBJ Space Center, which would be a considerable loss to NASA if Texas decided to secede.
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.
"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."
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.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
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.