Personally, I don't believe federal politics should even be local, so I would be happy to see people assigned to districts with a random number generator. Or better yet, to just hold house elections at the state level, like the senate. I think the idea of your congressman going to our federal government to argue for a sweet heart deal for his home town seems off. Better to let the federal government deal with big pictures and make broad allocations which can be divied up at the state level while the federal government focuses on bigger issues.
Unfortunately, as the 20th century kind of proved, everything at some point becomes a "bigger issue" that necessitates the federal government becoming involved. There's just a lot of argument about where that line between "small issue" and "bigger issue" should be drawn.
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
I suggested something similar to this the last time it came up and fairly liberal posters shouted me down because it would get rid of majority minority districts and black/latino/jewish/etc representation.
Which led me to ask "what is more important: that the will of the people is more accurately reflected independent of race/gender/creed, or that we have a number of minority representatives at the expense of ceding control of the house to whomever drew the lines last?"
This debate has happened.
i remember that. i cringed so hard.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
I suggested something similar to this the last time it came up and fairly liberal posters shouted me down because it would get rid of majority minority districts and black/latino/jewish/etc representation.
Which led me to ask "what is more important: that the will of the people is more accurately reflected independent of race/gender/creed, or that we have a number of minority representatives at the expense of ceding control of the house to whomever drew the lines last?"
This debate has happened.
ed: post unclear, going back to work
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Personally, I don't believe federal politics should even be local, so I would be happy to see people assigned to districts with a random number generator. Or better yet, to just hold house elections at the state level, like the senate. I think the idea of your congressman going to our federal government to argue for a sweet heart deal for his home town seems off. Better to let the federal government deal with big pictures and make broad allocations which can be divied up at the state level while the federal government focuses on bigger issues.
I don't think we need two Senates. Local representation at the national level is important to the Democratic process.
As a general rule, I've observed that people's attitude to proportional representation depends strongly on whether they consider it important that your opinions and attitudes are represented generally, or whether there should be a particular person that represents you
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
I suggested something similar to this the last time it came up and fairly liberal posters shouted me down because it would get rid of majority minority districts and black/latino/jewish/etc representation.
Which led me to ask "what is more important: that the will of the people is more accurately reflected independent of race/gender/creed, or that we have a number of minority representatives at the expense of ceding control of the house to whomever drew the lines last?"
This debate has happened.
at that point why not just get rid of the house entirely
nah, because there needs to be a body where states get appropriate representation based on their population.
California and North Dakota both having 2 votes in the only legislative body would be crazy dumb.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think in light of the defense that many on the left vigorously put forward (and still cling to) for Dan Rather after he used forged documents to try and sway a Presidential race in the closing days of the contest, there is much to atone for and trying to rip O'Reilly a new one for one sentence in a book, devoid of context and reasonably argued as sensible or at least understandable, smacks very much of partisan targeting rather than a concern over journalistic integrity.
I think the root of all of this is the very quick and severe treatment NBC served to Williams over what amounts to very little, compared to several corroborated incidents where O'Reilly used parsed language or possibly lied outright to establish his credibility as an entrenched reporter that have effectively been completely ignored by Fox News.
But, like I said, I don't really even care, because I don't consider O'Reilly or anything Fox does to be "journalism."
Personally, I don't believe federal politics should even be local, so I would be happy to see people assigned to districts with a random number generator. Or better yet, to just hold house elections at the state level, like the senate. I think the idea of your congressman going to our federal government to argue for a sweet heart deal for his home town seems off. Better to let the federal government deal with big pictures and make broad allocations which can be divied up at the state level while the federal government focuses on bigger issues.
Unfortunately, as the 20th century kind of proved, everything at some point becomes a "bigger issue" that necessitates the federal government becoming involved. There's just a lot of argument about where that line between "small issue" and "bigger issue" should be drawn.
I don't think it's that hard. If the issue isn't important enough for the state senators to take it up, I think it is properly characterized as a state level issue.
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
Massachusetts and Connecticut votes really should just be given to New York. Rhode Island's, Vermont's, and new Hampshire's to Maine. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland's to Pennsylvania...
This works out!
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I am a fan of there being a system where the state with the lowest population every ten years sets the stage for what is "one" representative, and then any state with that population +1 gets 2, any state with that population*2+1 gets 3, so on and so forth.
Let the size of the body flex in size every decade. And if there is an even number, give that seat to the state with the largest population that has not had that bonus seat the last time it came up.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Personally, I don't believe federal politics should even be local, so I would be happy to see people assigned to districts with a random number generator. Or better yet, to just hold house elections at the state level, like the senate. I think the idea of your congressman going to our federal government to argue for a sweet heart deal for his home town seems off. Better to let the federal government deal with big pictures and make broad allocations which can be divied up at the state level while the federal government focuses on bigger issues.
Unfortunately, as the 20th century kind of proved, everything at some point becomes a "bigger issue" that necessitates the federal government becoming involved. There's just a lot of argument about where that line between "small issue" and "bigger issue" should be drawn.
I don't think it's that hard. If the issue isn't important enough for the state senators to take it up, I think it is properly characterized as a state level issue.
For the longest time, state senators didn't think whites only restaurants were important enough to address.
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
North Dakota matters so little that the Fargo TV show takes place in Minnesota!
Let's China North Dakota. Tell them they aren't a state anymore, they are part of South Dakota and they can protest and get mad but we just maintain our version of the truth until they give up.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
in the south we used to force local governments to adhere to shit that wouldn't stuff black voters into a single district or black voters all strewn about in 90%-white nabes because both are really hamfisted efforts at vote dilution
algorithmic redistricting is what some people want to happen simply because it would mean that the majority wouldn't even have to pretend to give a single shit anymore in those places where minorities most desperately need representation
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
Massachusetts and Connecticut votes really should just be given to New York. Rhode Island's, Vermont's, and new Hampshire's to Maine. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland's to Pennsylvania...
This works out!
Not Massachusetts, but the Boston metro area ALONE has 6x more people than the entire state of north dakota.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
Massachusetts and Connecticut votes really should just be given to New York. Rhode Island's, Vermont's, and new Hampshire's to Maine. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland's to Pennsylvania...
This works out!
well but there are a lot more people in mass than in n dakota
like 9 times as many
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the house is already too large to be functional. Individual representatives actually matter very little. Its nothing but coalitions. But then I would ideally get rid of the states altogether and only have a large federal government with a small number of regionally elected senators as the sole congressional body, and all other issues handled by regional administrative boards and local government.
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
North Dakota matters so little that the Fargo TV show takes place in Minnesota!
Let's China North Dakota. Tell them they aren't a state anymore, they are part of South Dakota and they can protest and get mad but we just maintain our version of the truth until they give up.
South Dakotans to receive economic incentives to move north and breed with ethnic North Dakotans.
I think the house is already too large to be functional. Individual representatives actually matter very little. Its nothing but coalitions. But then I would ideally get rid of the states altogether and only have a large federal government with a small number of regionally elected senators as the sole congressional body, and all other issues handled by regional administrative boards and local government.
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
North Dakota matters so little that the Fargo TV show takes place in Minnesota!
Let's China North Dakota. Tell them they aren't a state anymore, they are part of South Dakota and they can protest and get mad but we just maintain our version of the truth until they give up.
minot ND was the most dreaded duty location in the air force when I was in the reserves
the story was that icicles would form sideways on chain link fences, and people would have to keep extra uniforms at the office because they'd routinely be snowed in at work
in the south we used to force local governments to adhere to shit that wouldn't stuff black voters into a single district or black voters all strewn about in 90%-white nabes because both are really hamfisted efforts at vote dilution
algorithmic redistricting is what some people want to happen simply because it would mean that the majority wouldn't even have to pretend to give a single shit anymore in those places where minorities most desperately need representation
the only argument that makes sense for why we would care about minority representation is that they're racially oppressed and need to have representatives at the national level to guard against it.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
What I am proposing would bring the house up to 589 members. Who would proportionately represent the population better, if not specific cells, on the national stage.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
we can't because that's racist.
I'm serious, this is the reason why we can't.
Indeed, the people who primarily get counted properly in the census are white and at least wealthy enough to have time to deal with the census. It's mostly the poorest of the poor and minorities that don't get counted properly.
Those are the people that would be getting disenfranchised.
Also, I think that if you had the districts drawn to perfectly represent, you'd probably end up with crazy districts like we have now. If everyone should have someone who shares their ideology in government, we'd draw the districts along ideological lines....
Also, this gets in to issues about what precisely it means to represent someone in government. I was represented for about 8 years by a old japanese-american dude, and his wife after he died. So I wasn't represented, in the sense that someone like me was in government. However, she did share some of my ideals, but she didn't always vote precisely the way that I wanted, so she didn't represent me in the sense of just being there to be my voice. However, I agreed with her about a lot, and I trusted that her judgment would mostly lead her in the right direction, so she represented me in that sense. But in that sense she didn't represent the guy two doors down who was conservative as all get out.
So what precisely does it mean that a particular congressman represents someone. It's not immediately clear to me (though I'm not skeptical that there is such a thing) what that means. So if we're going to design an algorithm to make our government more representational, what precisely does that mean that it's going to do?
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
in the south we used to force local governments to adhere to shit that wouldn't stuff black voters into a single district or black voters all strewn about in 90%-white nabes because both are really hamfisted efforts at vote dilution
algorithmic redistricting is what some people want to happen simply because it would mean that the majority wouldn't even have to pretend to give a single shit anymore in those places where minorities most desperately need representation
the only argument that makes sense for why we would care about minority representation is that they're racially oppressed and need to have representatives at the national level to guard against it.
North Dakota shouldn't get any votes! Their opinions matter 0%. Give all North Dakota's votes of South Dakota.
Massachusetts and Connecticut votes really should just be given to New York. Rhode Island's, Vermont's, and new Hampshire's to Maine. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland's to Pennsylvania...
This works out!
well but there are a lot more people in mass than in n dakota
like 9 times as many
this is true
but the point is that we set a level for how many people you need in order to become a State, and they met that bar. Going back now and saying "well that's not enough, we don't like that, we should x instead" doesn't make any more sense than lumping votes together by land area does.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Posts
Unfortunately, as the 20th century kind of proved, everything at some point becomes a "bigger issue" that necessitates the federal government becoming involved. There's just a lot of argument about where that line between "small issue" and "bigger issue" should be drawn.
I do not feel great so I have called in sick to work
i remember that. i cringed so hard.
ed: post unclear, going back to work
I don't think we need two Senates. Local representation at the national level is important to the Democratic process.
what does this even mean for you?!
nah, because there needs to be a body where states get appropriate representation based on their population.
California and North Dakota both having 2 votes in the only legislative body would be crazy dumb.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Tay Sway rules all.
@Harry Dresden @Sir Landshark @TTODewback @DemonStacey @Powerpuppies @chanus
I think the root of all of this is the very quick and severe treatment NBC served to Williams over what amounts to very little, compared to several corroborated incidents where O'Reilly used parsed language or possibly lied outright to establish his credibility as an entrenched reporter that have effectively been completely ignored by Fox News.
But, like I said, I don't really even care, because I don't consider O'Reilly or anything Fox does to be "journalism."
I do not have to answer emails or pretend to work!
I can sip my coffee in blissful peace and work on my last assignment for the week : )
SCOTUS always brings this out as a thing in electoral cases
and no, spool, it's not racist, it just has effects that are extremely unfavorable towards minorities in small areas
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
North Dakota matters so little that the Fargo TV show takes place in Minnesota!
I don't think it's that hard. If the issue isn't important enough for the state senators to take it up, I think it is properly characterized as a state level issue.
Massachusetts and Connecticut votes really should just be given to New York. Rhode Island's, Vermont's, and new Hampshire's to Maine. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland's to Pennsylvania...
This works out!
Let the size of the body flex in size every decade. And if there is an even number, give that seat to the state with the largest population that has not had that bonus seat the last time it came up.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The idea of "minority" districts feels wrong from a principled stance, even though I can understand the practical rational for them.
For the longest time, state senators didn't think whites only restaurants were important enough to address.
Yay!
Let's China North Dakota. Tell them they aren't a state anymore, they are part of South Dakota and they can protest and get mad but we just maintain our version of the truth until they give up.
algorithmic redistricting is what some people want to happen simply because it would mean that the majority wouldn't even have to pretend to give a single shit anymore in those places where minorities most desperately need representation
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Not Massachusetts, but the Boston metro area ALONE has 6x more people than the entire state of north dakota.
well but there are a lot more people in mass than in n dakota
like 9 times as many
baby steps
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
South Dakotans to receive economic incentives to move north and breed with ethnic North Dakotans.
Yup.
States are an antiquated notion.
Seems silly to give 300k people two senators instead of just splitting them between more populous states. But I guess once a state always a state.
minot ND was the most dreaded duty location in the air force when I was in the reserves
the story was that icicles would form sideways on chain link fences, and people would have to keep extra uniforms at the office because they'd routinely be snowed in at work
the only argument that makes sense for why we would care about minority representation is that they're racially oppressed and need to have representatives at the national level to guard against it.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Indeed, the people who primarily get counted properly in the census are white and at least wealthy enough to have time to deal with the census. It's mostly the poorest of the poor and minorities that don't get counted properly.
Those are the people that would be getting disenfranchised.
Also, I think that if you had the districts drawn to perfectly represent, you'd probably end up with crazy districts like we have now. If everyone should have someone who shares their ideology in government, we'd draw the districts along ideological lines....
Also, this gets in to issues about what precisely it means to represent someone in government. I was represented for about 8 years by a old japanese-american dude, and his wife after he died. So I wasn't represented, in the sense that someone like me was in government. However, she did share some of my ideals, but she didn't always vote precisely the way that I wanted, so she didn't represent me in the sense of just being there to be my voice. However, I agreed with her about a lot, and I trusted that her judgment would mostly lead her in the right direction, so she represented me in that sense. But in that sense she didn't represent the guy two doors down who was conservative as all get out.
So what precisely does it mean that a particular congressman represents someone. It's not immediately clear to me (though I'm not skeptical that there is such a thing) what that means. So if we're going to design an algorithm to make our government more representational, what precisely does that mean that it's going to do?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Which has historically born out to be true.
And I would say is still true.
this is true
but the point is that we set a level for how many people you need in order to become a State, and they met that bar. Going back now and saying "well that's not enough, we don't like that, we should x instead" doesn't make any more sense than lumping votes together by land area does.
*nods, scribbles notes on page entitled "Current Realpolitik"*
*flips way forward to "Reminisce About When People Identified By Arbitrary Geographic Regions"*
*sighs heavily*