|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 19 2017 02:21 farvacola wrote:
Come to Lansing and I'll show you why term limits are not the answer. They are, if anything, a guarantee that legislatures never have the expertise needed to approach problems with any sort of depth. The only people who end up with any sort of history at the capitol end up being lobbyists.
My gripe is people who've been in politics for 50 years. That's overstaying your welcome.
|
On July 19 2017 02:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:21 farvacola wrote:
Come to Lansing and I'll show you why term limits are not the answer. They are, if anything, a guarantee that legislatures never have the expertise needed to approach problems with any sort of depth. The only people who end up with any sort of history at the capitol end up being lobbyists. My gripe is people who've been in politics for 50 years. That's overstaying your welcome.
how is it overstaying if their constituents want to keep them?
if a doctor has been practicing for 50 years should they have to retire?
|
On July 19 2017 02:11 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:07 Sadist wrote:On July 19 2017 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Hes a POS who is refusing to try to fix it. What about the campaign promises on Drug prices? What a prick. If I recall correctly, he had a meeting with them and came out of it getting nothing done but giving them tax breaks.
Worse than that. He came out of the meeting saying Medicare shouldn't "price fix" in any way, including the services they already negotiate for.
|
On July 19 2017 02:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:21 farvacola wrote:
Come to Lansing and I'll show you why term limits are not the answer. They are, if anything, a guarantee that legislatures never have the expertise needed to approach problems with any sort of depth. The only people who end up with any sort of history at the capitol end up being lobbyists. My gripe is people who've been in politics for 50 years. That's overstaying your welcome.
That's definitely a problem, but I think it one better addressed through party system/election reform rather than term limits. Both parties have a history of supporting politicians who have overstayed their welcome, and if private money were less at play relative to elections through PAC reform, these stale politicians would have less ground to stand on as they fend off challengers.
|
On July 19 2017 02:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2017 02:21 farvacola wrote:
Come to Lansing and I'll show you why term limits are not the answer. They are, if anything, a guarantee that legislatures never have the expertise needed to approach problems with any sort of depth. The only people who end up with any sort of history at the capitol end up being lobbyists. My gripe is people who've been in politics for 50 years. That's overstaying your welcome. how is it overstaying if their constituents want to keep them? if a doctor has been practicing for 50 years should they have to retire?
Yes, most likely he is 8X years old and therefore could at any moment develope serious issues and the few that would still be good are not enough to make it safe.
I could explain it better in german but... There is a point people should retire and many don't see that point themselves.
|
On July 19 2017 02:38 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2017 02:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2017 02:21 farvacola wrote:
Come to Lansing and I'll show you why term limits are not the answer. They are, if anything, a guarantee that legislatures never have the expertise needed to approach problems with any sort of depth. The only people who end up with any sort of history at the capitol end up being lobbyists. My gripe is people who've been in politics for 50 years. That's overstaying your welcome. how is it overstaying if their constituents want to keep them? if a doctor has been practicing for 50 years should they have to retire? Yes, most likely he is 8X years old and therefore could at any moment develope serious issues and the few that would still be good are not enough to make it safe. I could explain it better in german but... There is a point people should retire and many don't see that point themselves.
that's a bit different; that's not overstaying your welcome; that's a retirement for age related degradation system.
|
|
|
On July 19 2017 02:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2017 02:21 farvacola wrote:
Come to Lansing and I'll show you why term limits are not the answer. They are, if anything, a guarantee that legislatures never have the expertise needed to approach problems with any sort of depth. The only people who end up with any sort of history at the capitol end up being lobbyists. My gripe is people who've been in politics for 50 years. That's overstaying your welcome. That's definitely a problem, but I think it one better addressed through party system/election reform rather than term limits. Both parties have a history of supporting politicians who have overstayed their welcome, and if private money were less at play relative to elections through PAC reform, these stale politicians would have less ground to stand on as they fend off challengers.
I agree that PACs need to be reformed. And the Citizens United ruling needs to be overturned as well. There are a lot of things that need to be fixed in this country, but I think starting by getting people out who have been in there far too long and have corrupted the system as to benefit themselves and their "friends' should be the first step.
|
On July 19 2017 02:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 01:24 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 01:03 zlefin wrote:
So, on gerrymandering, what are the main solutions? I know there's making non-partisan redistricting commissions (thoug hI'm not quite sure how you make them non-partisan)
I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it.
there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. The most reasonable (and popular) solution I've heard is to draw the district lines algorithmically. but with which algorithm? there's an awful lot of potential variables involved, and I haven't seen proposals for actual specific algorithms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.87685c11f818
It's already been done. This algorithm optimizes for compactness, which seems to make sense to me from a high-level perspective.
|
He's a businessman. He knows what he's doing. He has the best businesses. The smartest people working on it.
|
That is kind of amazing. That guys party is currently in control of the government. If there is a problem with healthcare, it is their job to fix it. It is what they were elected to do. And apparently Trump thinks that there is a big problem. He is refusing to do his job. That clowns idea of a solution to the problem is "Let it grow out of control and then blame someone else for it."
|
On July 19 2017 02:48 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2017 01:24 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 01:03 zlefin wrote:
So, on gerrymandering, what are the main solutions? I know there's making non-partisan redistricting commissions (thoug hI'm not quite sure how you make them non-partisan)
I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it.
there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. The most reasonable (and popular) solution I've heard is to draw the district lines algorithmically. but with which algorithm? there's an awful lot of potential variables involved, and I haven't seen proposals for actual specific algorithms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.87685c11f818It's already been done. This algorithm optimizes for compactness, which seems to make sense to me from a high-level perspective.
not so much been done as an algorithm has been proposed, but how thoroughly has it been vetted? what are the problem conditions? whcih scenarios does it work better/worse in? which parties woudl its results favor? i'm at my article for wapo, so I can't read the article
|
I'm honestly surprised that Trump hasn't yet called to repeal and replace the entire Republican party.
Or better yet, repeal them now and then worry about replacing them in two years.
|
Another day, another campaign promise down the tubes re: the Iran deal. At least it sounds like reason ultimately won out. Hopefully this means the topic will be dropped for the future until there's an actual reason to leave the agreement.
On July 19 2017 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm honestly surprised that Trump hasn't yet called to repeal and replace the entire Republican party.
Or better yet, repeal them now and then worry about replacing them in two years.
He basically already has, considering he directly attacked a few folks who opposed the House bill. I believe one even had ads aired against him.
|
On July 19 2017 02:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:48 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2017 01:24 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 01:03 zlefin wrote:
So, on gerrymandering, what are the main solutions? I know there's making non-partisan redistricting commissions (thoug hI'm not quite sure how you make them non-partisan)
I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it.
there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. The most reasonable (and popular) solution I've heard is to draw the district lines algorithmically. but with which algorithm? there's an awful lot of potential variables involved, and I haven't seen proposals for actual specific algorithms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.87685c11f818It's already been done. This algorithm optimizes for compactness, which seems to make sense to me from a high-level perspective. not so much been done as an algorithm has been proposed, but how thoroughly has it been vetted? what are the problem conditions? whcih scenarios does it work better/worse in? which parties woudl its results favor? i'm at my article for wapo, so I can't read the article
The article doesn't really go into details of implementation, but provides several state examples that appear to produce reasonable results. I'm unaware of any studies examining the impact or details of implementation (because I haven't looked), but I think a computer-based system that only depends on compactness and district population size has far more potential to prevent gerrymandering than letting a bunch of humans argue over it.
|
On July 19 2017 03:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 02:53 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2017 02:48 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2017 01:24 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 01:03 zlefin wrote:
So, on gerrymandering, what are the main solutions? I know there's making non-partisan redistricting commissions (thoug hI'm not quite sure how you make them non-partisan)
I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it.
there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. The most reasonable (and popular) solution I've heard is to draw the district lines algorithmically. but with which algorithm? there's an awful lot of potential variables involved, and I haven't seen proposals for actual specific algorithms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.87685c11f818It's already been done. This algorithm optimizes for compactness, which seems to make sense to me from a high-level perspective. not so much been done as an algorithm has been proposed, but how thoroughly has it been vetted? what are the problem conditions? whcih scenarios does it work better/worse in? which parties woudl its results favor? i'm at my article for wapo, so I can't read the article The article doesn't really go into details of implementation, but provides several state examples that appear to produce reasonable results. I'm unaware of any studies examining the impact or details of implementation (because I haven't looked), but I think a computer-based system that only depends on compactness and district population size has far more potential to prevent gerrymandering than letting a bunch of humans argue over it.
I fully agree on the principle; I just know that in practice, what will happen is parties will figure out which party benefits from which algorithms, and argue that the one that benefits them is "fairer" somehow.
|
On July 19 2017 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm honestly surprised that Trump hasn't yet called to repeal and replace the entire Republican party.
Or better yet, repeal them now and then worry about replacing them in two years.
Word is that his people are actively trying to find somebody to run against Flake.
|
Democrats seem to be putting a lot of eggs in this gerrymandering basket as if their constituents aren't naturally concentrated.
Gerrymandering is something both sides have done for a long time, but now the geographic breakdown of both parties voters means no matter how you draw the districts they will look ridiculous and/or they will favor Republicans.
With perfectly drawn districts you probably only see a a few elections look different. Really gerrymandering has been screwing over Republicans as of late anyway, since they made these super conservative districts where anything less than Ayn Rand's wet dream is communism.
|
Murkowski campaigned on repeal and voted to repeal. All three in fact voted to repeal. Good luck in your primaries if you vote against repeal after all these years of saying you'd do it.
|
I don't see it as a good move for Trump to be out there saying "let Obamacare fail" since we all have known the problems with it for years and we could have just passed changes to make it work much better and not fail. Instead by saying these things Trump looks like a stubborn child who is jealous of Obama and is actively killing something with his name on it just for spite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
