|
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. |
This Trump press conference/statement on the tax bill is cringeworthy.
Getting families to come and thank him personally for the tax cut? Creepy. Feels a little dear leaderish to me.
|
are these actual middle class familiesor the paul ryan million dollar middle class families?
|
On December 14 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. The side out of power whines about it like they oppose the corruption of the process, when they really want to be in charge of it and hear the other side whining. These proposed “solutions” regularly look worse than leaving it a political process by state representatives.
Except those systems have been proven to be up to the task when other nations use them. Politicians just don't want to lose the chance to pick their voters every 10 years and stack the deck.
|
On December 14 2017 05:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:
One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. Why does this even matter? You're not drawing districts to distribute voters evenly. You're drawing them in lines that actually makes sense. Population, municipal lines, geography, are all factors that should take precedence long before "how people vote" actually takes effect. Starting at the very basic level, the only squiggly lines you should see on an electoral map should be because of rivers or mountain ranges. Man I can think of a dozen ways to gerrymander a state so those rules get twisted to what we have now. South side and west side of Chicago should be one district and north and east should be another. The "suburbs" can be easily divided up with their second tier suburbs because thats fair beacuse they're close to eachother and probably share police departments anyway. Then well the counties can be plugged into a good puzzle because they're looking the same from how high I'm up. I don't just happen to have election returns from the last 5 elections in my back pocket
I know very little about Chicago's geography or demographics, but I'm assuming this is at least somewhat accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_areas_in_Chicago
So if that's how the area is actually divided, planned, organized, managed, etc. then why don't the voting districts at least resemble this? And not this:
https://media1.fdncms.com/chicago/imager/who-knows-how-current-these-things-are-anymore/u/slideshow/5479941/1327450220-citycouncil-r2.jpg
|
|
|
On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you.
Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Woodfin
Gona add in the wiki of the guy who was mentioned in the post above if people are interested. Looks like a prime future democratic candidate if he weren't in the deep south.
|
On December 14 2017 05:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 05:15 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:
One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. Why does this even matter? You're not drawing districts to distribute voters evenly. You're drawing them in lines that actually makes sense. Population, municipal lines, geography, are all factors that should take precedence long before "how people vote" actually takes effect. Starting at the very basic level, the only squiggly lines you should see on an electoral map should be because of rivers or mountain ranges. Man I can think of a dozen ways to gerrymander a state so those rules get twisted to what we have now. South side and west side of Chicago should be one district and north and east should be another. The "suburbs" can be easily divided up with their second tier suburbs because thats fair beacuse they're close to eachother and probably share police departments anyway. Then well the counties can be plugged into a good puzzle because they're looking the same from how high I'm up. I don't just happen to have election returns from the last 5 elections in my back pocket I know very little about Chicago's geography or demographics, but I'm assuming this is at least somewhat accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_areas_in_ChicagoSo if that's how the area is actually divided, planned, organized, managed, etc. then why don't the voting districts at least resemble this? And not this: https://media1.fdncms.com/chicago/imager/who-knows-how-current-these-things-are-anymore/u/slideshow/5479941/1327450220-citycouncil-r2.jpg
because they moved the lines slowly over time for perfectly justifiable reasons until it became an insurmountable issue that it is today. Not to mention various population changes with the census.
Then you get the fact that its a lot easier to organize how one city works with the different levels of government and when you start getting into the communities that don't really differentiate themselves well with the county government. How much friction exactly is there between suburban governments and the greater city government as a whole? I doubt white flight has left them in good standing with each other.
|
On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall.
I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job.
|
On December 14 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 04:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 04:17 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2017 03:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 14 2017 03:23 brian wrote:On December 14 2017 03:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
Oh, this is pretty insane. The 7th district includes basically all 3 major urban areas plus the Black Belt in AK. Probably like 40% of the population and over half the state's economic output.
idk if i’m a total idiot or anything but that doesn’t really shout ‘gerrymandered’ to me. of course the biggest cities are going to vote democrat and hold a significant portion of an otherwise unpopjlous state. and i mean there’s only so many ways to draw a map. that the rest of the map was so evenly split, to me, speaks to some very equitable lines. the only questionable piece is that odd leg through 6, and just *how* red 4 is (knowing nothing of the area though there might be an explanation i’m i aware of.) It's gerrymandered because it means that seats (what you are trying to win) are assigned to the regions people vote in such a way that as many democratic voters are looking to vote for 1 seat as possible. So even if you theoretically were to have dems somehow take ~70% of the vote (with most of it in district 7), they'd still get only 1/7 seats. Basically, let all the dems take 1 district uncontested, but claim all the others. "Fair" representation would be where the number of seats assigned to each party matches the vote percentages, or something to that effect (say, if 40% of people vote Dem, then ~3/7 seats should be blue). The entire electoral college system favours republicans in this way ("state" as well as headcount contribute to EC votes per state, so more people in a state actually means those people have less EC representation). You still have a problem with fairness. Your system would mean densely populated urban centers get undue influence over rural Americans. National party then comes in, ignores the pop outside urban centers because they don’t get many seats, and the House of Representatives are only representative of big cities. Pretty unfair. If more than half your state by population is rural, then winning those districts will still get you more house representation. How is that unfair? Because rural areas lack population but still deserve representation ... instead of stupidly putting all voters in a basket and assigning based on popular vote percentage. A Democrat in small town farmland is not the same as a Democrat living in public housing working in a service industry. It’s by design reflective of areas instead of state populations. 1) That is literally what one is doing when making a whole city, or such a large part of it, a single district. Let's not pretend urban areas are homogeneous and every group and region actually gets represented by having "the urban district" like we see with Alabama here. 2) One wants to represent people, not land. I'm not saying get rid of rural districts, they still get house seats. Just not so disproportionately many. Your plan easily makes a tyranny of the majority, if share of total popular vote was tied to representatives. I have no interest in making things more unfair in the other direction—or two wrongs do not make a right.
We're talking about a figure that graphically represents real Senate votes, where Democrats won more votes than Republicans, and reimagines them as House votes. Also, the real vote was an unusual one. Granted that we're merely exploring an instructive hypothetical, let's explore what you just said.
Democrats won only barely more than Republicans, but without loss of generality in the following, assume Democrats won 55% of votes and Republicans 45%.
If Democrats won 100% of representatives, it would be tyranny of the majority.
If Republicans won 6/7 = 86% of representatives, it would be tyranny of the minority. This is what we're looking at in the Alabama picture posted in the thread.
If Democrats won 55% of representatives, you think that would be tyranny of the majority? I think that would be fair, but you seem to be thinking that the group with a lower population ratio should have a representation ratio higher than its population ratio.
Let's apply that thought to the real-life 2016 House elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016
The popular vote was 63,173,815 (R) versus 61,776,554 (D). No minor parties won seats, so let's look only at R votes and D votes.
63,173,815 (R votes) + 61,776,554 (D votes) = 124,949,739 (major party votes)
63,173,815 / 124,949,739 = 50.56% (R votes as % of major party votes)
61,776,554 / 124,949,739 = 49.44% (D votes as % of major party votes)
Now let's look at seats won.
241 (R seats) + 194 (D seats) = 435 (total seats)
241 / 435 = 55.4% (R seats as % of total)
194 / 435 = 44.6% (D seats as % of total)
So the votes had a 50.56 to 49.44 split, whereas the representation has a 55.4 to 44.6 split. Am I correct that you think avoiding tyranny of the majority means ensuring the group with a lower population ratio has a representation ratio better than its population ratio? Because if so, Democrats should hold at least 215 seats (49.44% of 435). This is 21 seats more than Democrats actually have.
In the Alabama example, Democrats have more votes, but you seem to think it would be tyranny of the majority if they had a corresponding percentage of districts.
In real life, Republicans have more votes and they have more than the corresponding percentage of districts (to the tune of 21 seats). Is that not tyranny of the majority in your view?
|
On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job.
I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering.
Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it.
You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall.
|
Search for "Jake Tapper fact checks Roy Moore spokesman" on youtube. Hilarious stuff. The guy didn't know he didn't have to swear on a bible. :D
|
On December 14 2017 06:24 sc-darkness wrote:
Search for "Jake Tapper fact checks Roy Moore spokesman" on youtube. Hilarious stuff. The guy didn't know he didn't have to swear on a bible. :D
It's like his entire world fell apart when he realized people didn't have to fear god to govern.
|
On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall.
I don' treally care about the arguin gwith plansix; I just wanna be clear on one specific point:
are you for, against, or neutral on having independent redistricting commissions?
|
On December 14 2017 06:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. I don' treally care about the arguin gwith plansix; I just wanna be clear on one specific point: are you for, against, or neutral on having independent redistricting commissions?
I reject the question as its too vague in line with "are you for background checks". Yeah I'm for an independent election commission that attempts to create fair and equal elections but to simply accept that good intention and ignore the methods that the commission will use is gravely naive at best.
|
|
|
On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall.
So what you are saying is that you are cynical and I’m not? Because that is what I take from that. One side is abusing power and you don’t believe the other side will create a better system.
The simple solution is for both of us to support and independent commission and for both of our political leanings to push for it. If the commission is created by both parties, it will be seen as trust worthy and fair.
And it needs to happen because the current system isn’t healthy for democracy. These urban population centers are not going to tolerate being the bread winner for the state and getting screwed out of political power by a rigged system.
|
On December 14 2017 06:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. I don' treally care about the arguin gwith plansix; I just wanna be clear on one specific point: are you for, against, or neutral on having independent redistricting commissions? I reject the question as its too vague in line with "are you for background checks". Yeah I'm for an independent election commission that attempts to create fair and equal elections but to simply accept that good intention and ignore the methods that the commission will use is gravely naive at best.
that doesn' tsound like a rejection of the question at all.
it sounds like a provisional yes to me. aka a yes (so long as it really is setup properly).
I ever said to accept the good intention and methodology uncritically, therefore it's odd to even bring it up, as I was not talking about creating such a thing, as such that part of the response will be ignored as irrelevant.
so i'm just gonna mark that down as a yes.
|
also from deep in the twitter sphere :
|
On December 14 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. So what you are saying is that you are cynical and I’m not? Because that is what I take from that. One side is abusing power and you don’t believe the other side will create a better system. The simple solution is for both of us to support and independent commission and for both of our political leanings to push for it. If the commission is created by both parties, it will be seen as trust worthy and fair. And it needs to happen because the current system isn’t healthy for democracy. These urban population centers are not going to tolerate being the bread winner for the state and getting screwed out of political power by a rigged system.
I'm not saying anything. I'm repeated questioning what you are saying and you keep assuming that I don't mean what I'm posting and that I'm meaning the worst you can tribute my words in your head as. You're the one thats assuming that one side wouldn't abuse power now even though they've shown no evidence for this in the past and show no real evidence for it now but trust them because they agree with you're other political views.
Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean that it'll be trustworthy and fair. Thats just silly to expect a magic organization to sprout up and do things exactly how we all apparently agree now we want without any real specifics or methods in this agreement.
You didn't need the last sentence there for everyone to agree with you. You didn't need to bring a "us vs them" aspect into solving a problem that everyone agrees is a problem.
On December 14 2017 06:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. I don' treally care about the arguin gwith plansix; I just wanna be clear on one specific point: are you for, against, or neutral on having independent redistricting commissions? I reject the question as its too vague in line with "are you for background checks". Yeah I'm for an independent election commission that attempts to create fair and equal elections but to simply accept that good intention and ignore the methods that the commission will use is gravely naive at best. that doesn' tsound like a rejection of the question at all. it sounds like a provisional yes to me. aka a yes (so long as it really is setup properly). I ever said to accept the good intention and methodology uncritically, therefore it's odd to even bring it up, as I was not talking about creating such a thing, as such that part of the response will be ignored as irrelevant. so i'm just gonna mark that down as a yes.
You can mark it down as a provisional yes as much as you can mark down 90% of everyone as a provisional yes in the majority of solutions to problems. Thats why nothing gets done and the problems never get solved. You're already assuming that the problem with get solved because "so many people already agree to a solution why arn't you with all these people" can just be thrown at people that don't agree with you later. People can see that ball coming down the pipe really slowly now and it doesn't fool anyone.
|
On December 14 2017 06:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. So what you are saying is that you are cynical and I’m not? Because that is what I take from that. One side is abusing power and you don’t believe the other side will create a better system. The simple solution is for both of us to support and independent commission and for both of our political leanings to push for it. If the commission is created by both parties, it will be seen as trust worthy and fair. And it needs to happen because the current system isn’t healthy for democracy. These urban population centers are not going to tolerate being the bread winner for the state and getting screwed out of political power by a rigged system. I'm not saying anything. I'm repeated questioning what you are saying and you keep assuming that I don't mean what I'm posting and that I'm meaning the worst you can tribute my words in your head as. You're the one thats assuming that one side wouldn't abuse power now even though they've shown no evidence for this in the past and show no real evidence for it now but trust them because they agree with you're other political views. Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean that it'll be trustworthy and fair. Thats just silly to expect a magic organization to sprout up and do things exactly how we all apparently agree now we want without any real specifics or methods in this agreement. You didn't need the last sentence there for everyone to agree with you. You didn't need to bring a "us vs them" aspect into solving a problem that everyone agrees is a problem.
Ok, lets roll back since I seem to completely misunderstand you. Modern data collection and population modeling has made gerrymandering so much more effective and it likely can’t be left alone.
What solution should congress and our political parties be working towards to address this issue, assuming both sides cannot resist abusing the power?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
