Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections(delaney.house.gov)
delaney.house.gov
Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections
https://delaney.house.gov/news/press-releases/delaney-introduces-bill-to-end-gerrymandering-reform-elections
179 comments
One solution to the problem might be to increase the number of representatives. The house was supposed to scale with the population. This was stopped in early 1900. It's a scaling problem. More people to vote for means less effective gerrymandering.
TERM LIMITS
As a Canadian, this doesn't affect me. But the bill seems refreshingly straightforward, and introduces several reforms that I would argue seem desperately needed in American elections.
Sadly, I also have very little hope that this will go anywhere.
Sadly, I also have very little hope that this will go anywhere.
Sadly, I believe that you're correct: the bill was also introduced in the previous two congressional sessions, where it presumably went nowhere.
[deleted]
I feel like most of these changes would require a constitutional amendment.
We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution.
People act like the Constitution we have came down from the heavens in a beam of light. But it was written by a bunch of guys who had never lived in a real democracy before. In fact it was written at a time when there pretty much hadn't been ANY democracies in the whole world for two thousand years. We've had two hundred years of experience and hundreds of iterations of the concept since then, so we have a much better idea of what will work and what won't.
It bothers me so much the passion for the Constitution people have. Yet, there is almost universal distain for Congress and the entire political establishment. Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. Electing different people isn't going to change anything. Ending Gerrymandering (if possible while using districts) would help, but it doesn't go far enough. You would still have a two party system. You would still be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils every time you go to the polls. And a large chunk of the country would always feel that they don't have someone in government representing them.
If we want people engaged in government, and to have a government engaged in them, then we need proportional representation in one form or another. Anything else is just a bandaid.
People act like the Constitution we have came down from the heavens in a beam of light. But it was written by a bunch of guys who had never lived in a real democracy before. In fact it was written at a time when there pretty much hadn't been ANY democracies in the whole world for two thousand years. We've had two hundred years of experience and hundreds of iterations of the concept since then, so we have a much better idea of what will work and what won't.
It bothers me so much the passion for the Constitution people have. Yet, there is almost universal distain for Congress and the entire political establishment. Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. Electing different people isn't going to change anything. Ending Gerrymandering (if possible while using districts) would help, but it doesn't go far enough. You would still have a two party system. You would still be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils every time you go to the polls. And a large chunk of the country would always feel that they don't have someone in government representing them.
If we want people engaged in government, and to have a government engaged in them, then we need proportional representation in one form or another. Anything else is just a bandaid.
Great Britain had become a constitutional monarchy and rough parliamentary democracy (and Great Britain, for that matter...Scotland and England merged soon after) with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. British politics in the mid-1700s was a contact sport, and many of the upper-class colonists who would become the Founding Fathers spent their formative years watching Britain wrestle with what it means to be a democracy. Many of the principles in the Constitution come from bitter experience, and are direct reactions to misbehavior on the part of colonial governors, magistrates, or members of parliament.
There are certainly parts of the Constitution that are woefully out-of-date, but it's not really true that it was written in a vacuum, nor that the United States was the first democracy for two thousand years.
There are certainly parts of the Constitution that are woefully out-of-date, but it's not really true that it was written in a vacuum, nor that the United States was the first democracy for two thousand years.
We went five years without Congress being able to pass a budget during the Obama administration. If we tried to come up with a new Constitution we'd not have one country anymore. (Which may well be what we need.)
Works for me, we absolutely need a new constitution. The current one obviously is completely failed (an entire industrial-scale Civil War? REALLY?!)
Too bad we need 3/4 states to nullify the current constitution before we can establish a new one via another constitutional convention.
Too bad we need 3/4 states to nullify the current constitution before we can establish a new one via another constitutional convention.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How is starting from scratch preferable to passing 3 or 4 amendments in the current system to address the largest issues we've struggled to fix over the decades?
How is starting from scratch preferable to passing 3 or 4 amendments in the current system to address the largest issues we've struggled to fix over the decades?
Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. It would be a lot easier to start from scratch.
If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them.
the entire structure of government can change. There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example.
A parliamentary system is more useful.
Nationalism needs to be curtailed.
Services need to be redefined for the modern era.
If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them.
the entire structure of government can change. There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example.
A parliamentary system is more useful.
Nationalism needs to be curtailed.
Services need to be redefined for the modern era.
>Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified.
They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amendments would solve a majority of the underlying structural problems we face.
A few well-chosen amendments would break our current congressional gridlock, allowing laws to be passed to further address systemic problems but don't themselves require constitutional amendments.
1. voting rights & auditability
2. gerrymandering / district drawing
3. campaign finance
Just these 3 changes alone would radically shift the accountability and representation of politicians in federal government. It would be transformative in terms of policy shifts.
>If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them.
This is not true. Trump is only 'protected' from Impeachment because the house is not representative of the nation. This is caused by (1) gerrymandering districts and (2) setting an artificial 435 maximum on the number of house representatives. Fixing (2) doesn't even require an amendment, technically, and would shift the electoral college such that Trump would not have won in the first place.
>A parliamentary system is more useful.
It would be interesting for a state to actually adopt a parliamentary system.
>There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example.
That is the Press. There certainly could be more explicit legal protections to formalize the role journalists play in investigating corruption and whistleblowers.
They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amendments would solve a majority of the underlying structural problems we face.
A few well-chosen amendments would break our current congressional gridlock, allowing laws to be passed to further address systemic problems but don't themselves require constitutional amendments.
1. voting rights & auditability
2. gerrymandering / district drawing
3. campaign finance
Just these 3 changes alone would radically shift the accountability and representation of politicians in federal government. It would be transformative in terms of policy shifts.
>If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them.
This is not true. Trump is only 'protected' from Impeachment because the house is not representative of the nation. This is caused by (1) gerrymandering districts and (2) setting an artificial 435 maximum on the number of house representatives. Fixing (2) doesn't even require an amendment, technically, and would shift the electoral college such that Trump would not have won in the first place.
>A parliamentary system is more useful.
It would be interesting for a state to actually adopt a parliamentary system.
>There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example.
That is the Press. There certainly could be more explicit legal protections to formalize the role journalists play in investigating corruption and whistleblowers.
> oversight branch
And who watches these watchmen?
And who watches these watchmen?
is that something people haven't figured out?
The problem of watching the watchmen is an old one. Ideally you want to have watchmen who watch each other, like how the judiciary acts as a check on the executive and the legislature. However, the person I replied to was unhappy with the current state of affairs and proposed adding another watchman. So I wondered what their solution was.
How did other people solve it?
> We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution.
Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Constitution?
> Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution.
And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago.
States could, if they wanted to, implement proportional representation themselves without having to amend the Constitution. It obviously wouldn't mean that the entirety of Congress is proportional, but it'd be a start.
Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Constitution?
> Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution.
And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago.
States could, if they wanted to, implement proportional representation themselves without having to amend the Constitution. It obviously wouldn't mean that the entirety of Congress is proportional, but it'd be a start.
Seriously. The last Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation. It wrote a new system of government. If you don't like our elected leaders, understand that a constitutional convention means giving them, as a convention, absolute power to do anything.
Not really; if the convention proposes an amendment that isn't ratified by 3/4ths of states, things stay as they are. Even a constitutional convention has checks and balances. (Historically, states have used the threat of a convention to force congress to act on issues where they were dragging their feet.)
> Even a constitutional convention has checks and balances
Any checks passed before the convention are null and void when it starts. The checks find force in the constitution being nullified by the convention. Constitutional conventions are temporary autocracies. Established when needed, but never to be lightly considered.
Any checks passed before the convention are null and void when it starts. The checks find force in the constitution being nullified by the convention. Constitutional conventions are temporary autocracies. Established when needed, but never to be lightly considered.
Why do you think we need a new Constitution?
Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on the political parties. See California Democratic Party vs. Jones: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401
This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.
This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.
Although in 2008 the SC upheld Washington state's modified primary system, called the top-two primary. In the top-two primary the two candidates who receive the most votes go head to head in the general election. Candidates no longer are listed on the ballot by party, the candidate states what their party preference is, regardless whether the candidate is the official party candidate or not. The parties are still free to choose a candidate and place them on the ballot, but the ballot does not state that the candidate is the one chosen by the party. The candidate or party can advertise that in campaign literature if they want.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules...
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules...
I think you're right that this probably couldn't be done without an amendment, but I don't see how California Democratic Party vs. Jones actually is a strong argument for that. That seems to largely have been a first amendment case, if I understand the opinion correctly. The basic argument being that blanked primary systems forced parties to associate with candidates, which'd in turn be forced speech ("freedom of association").
Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?
Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?
It's not so bad, states can just tell the parties to go eat dirt and have the same requirements for anyone to get on the ballot.
In such a system private groups would still be free to endorse a particular candidate.
Won't happen, but the problem isn't that primaries are closed, it's that they impact the names that end up on the ballot.
In such a system private groups would still be free to endorse a particular candidate.
Won't happen, but the problem isn't that primaries are closed, it's that they impact the names that end up on the ballot.
[deleted]
This isn't imposing open primaries, or doing anything comparable Constitutionally.
AFAICT, it's a fairly straightforward application of Congress plenary power to regulate House elections (Art. I, Sec. 4, para. 1.)
AFAICT, it's a fairly straightforward application of Congress plenary power to regulate House elections (Art. I, Sec. 4, para. 1.)
[deleted]
Why?
Federal holiday? Nope.
Top-two primaries? Nope. The us constitution doesnt address political parties, currently.
Redistricting rules? Nope. Take a look at Article 1, Section 4 of the us constitution and/or https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedu...
Not sure, but under the US Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves. So this bill is unenforceable. Both parties like to pass symbolic gestures like this on occasion even though they know it cannot be law.
The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race.
Corrections welcome.
The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race.
Corrections welcome.
> I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves
Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing.
From the US Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
The bill is legal by this provision.
Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing.
From the US Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
The bill is legal by this provision.
I did check the sources. The line you quote is the wrong line. The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. Further, "how districting is performed" is pretty vague in the original Constitution which I believe means it is left to the states to decide. The 14th Amendment implies that the states must use districts -- before then they could have used a statewide system.
> The line you quote is the wrong line
I'm very sure it is not. Article 1, Section 4.
> The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line.
That's not how the law is read (X "topic" is governed by Y statute solely). One section does not provide the guidelines for apportionment, alone. Preceding sections generally override following sections when in doubt, unless explicitly overridden in following sections.
Reapportionment has nothing to do with elections, but the result of the elections as it pertains to the composition of Congress in relation to population. There is nothing in regard to this to require a change to the constitution, as an amendment.
I'm very sure it is not. Article 1, Section 4.
> The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line.
That's not how the law is read (X "topic" is governed by Y statute solely). One section does not provide the guidelines for apportionment, alone. Preceding sections generally override following sections when in doubt, unless explicitly overridden in following sections.
Reapportionment has nothing to do with elections, but the result of the elections as it pertains to the composition of Congress in relation to population. There is nothing in regard to this to require a change to the constitution, as an amendment.
The problem with a system that's easy to manipulate is that the benefitting/manipulating party doesn't like giving up their advantage.
Being easy to manipulate is already a problem
We have gerrymandering at every level, but first with the States. Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? We have 12% of the population of the US. Wyoming has 0.18%, smaller than DC. Of course, this continues with the House and the Electoral College. Et cetera.
However, there is no incentive for Wyoming and ND and Alaska and ... to fix this.
No Taxation Without Representation? Sure, but that doesn't mean the representation has to be fair.
However, there is no incentive for Wyoming and ND and Alaska and ... to fix this.
No Taxation Without Representation? Sure, but that doesn't mean the representation has to be fair.
This is going downvoted to oblivion but I think it's a fair point. The Senate / House divide made a lot of sense for 13 colonies, which were kind of like separate entities, but doesn't make as much sense now. For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California? If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.
I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before it is reformed in a fair way.
I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before it is reformed in a fair way.
> For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states?
Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican.
> If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice?
Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.
> Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?
Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High School.
> If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.
You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican.
> If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice?
Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.
> Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?
Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High School.
> If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.
You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
This seems like a bit of a troll?
You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate.
Also:
> Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.
And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.
You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate.
Also:
> Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.
And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.
> This seems like a bit of a troll?
Umm, no, thats the accepted reason why the territory was split in two instead of becoming a state outright.
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory because apparently one must link history or be called a troll.
> Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in Congress and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889 and the territories could become states in nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land became available to settlers
> And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state.
Yet they're the same state today, and North and South Dakota are not. Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? Just so that it is more "fair" for Californian Senate inputs? The reason for the senate being 2 per state was to allow each state equal voting ability amongst states so that populated states couldn't easily override less populated states.
Umm, no, thats the accepted reason why the territory was split in two instead of becoming a state outright.
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory because apparently one must link history or be called a troll.
> Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in Congress and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889 and the territories could become states in nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land became available to settlers
> And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state.
Yet they're the same state today, and North and South Dakota are not. Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? Just so that it is more "fair" for Californian Senate inputs? The reason for the senate being 2 per state was to allow each state equal voting ability amongst states so that populated states couldn't easily override less populated states.
> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population?
You're ignoring my overall point. The concept of "states" doesn't make sense in the way it did when the country was formed. The 13 colonies were actually separate states, with separate governments and economies that agreed to join together to form a single state/country.
However, as you pointed out, the process of creating states became political. An example (as you showed) North/South Dakota were split for political reasons, to achieve a certain voting outcome. The criteria being used to separate them is a political one, not something based on separate economic structures, or separate governments, or some other notion of what a "state" is.
This shows that the notion of a "state" has changed since the late 1700's. Some current "states" are the result of political calculations, where as the original 13 states were separate entities in some other sense.
> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population?
I'm saying the entire concept of a "Senate" with 2 reps for each "state" doesn't make sense today. It's an outdated concept from a different reality.
The Senate does have other useful properties, of course, but the current division of states doesn't make sense.
You're ignoring my overall point. The concept of "states" doesn't make sense in the way it did when the country was formed. The 13 colonies were actually separate states, with separate governments and economies that agreed to join together to form a single state/country.
However, as you pointed out, the process of creating states became political. An example (as you showed) North/South Dakota were split for political reasons, to achieve a certain voting outcome. The criteria being used to separate them is a political one, not something based on separate economic structures, or separate governments, or some other notion of what a "state" is.
This shows that the notion of a "state" has changed since the late 1700's. Some current "states" are the result of political calculations, where as the original 13 states were separate entities in some other sense.
> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population?
I'm saying the entire concept of a "Senate" with 2 reps for each "state" doesn't make sense today. It's an outdated concept from a different reality.
The Senate does have other useful properties, of course, but the current division of states doesn't make sense.
Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?
This is by design. The whole point of the House is proportional representation. Recall that senators originally weren't even directly elected.
Gerrymandering is always by design.
But that's not gerrymandering. It's a different thing. Gerrymandering is specifically the process of drawing otherwise unthinkable district boundaries to achieve some particular electoral result.
Wyoming became a state on July 10, 1890. It then had a population of 62,555 and now has 563,626 [1]. The population of the US in 1890 was 62,979,766 and is now 321.4 million.
So with Wyoming's 0.1% population of the US then and its 0.17% now, is that a thinkable process or is it gerrymandering?
[1] http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm
So with Wyoming's 0.1% population of the US then and its 0.17% now, is that a thinkable process or is it gerrymandering?
[1] http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm
I think maybe you're operating at a higher level of abstraction than I am. Electoral distortions like the allocation of two Senate seats per state regardless of population share, or failure to keep representation inline with original intentions are definitely things to carp about. They might even have a similar effect as gerrymandering in some cases. But unless you're redrawing borders for purely electoral reasons you're not gerrymandering.
Is this really debatable? Are we actually arguing about something that can be settled by referencing a dictionary?
Is this really debatable? Are we actually arguing about something that can be settled by referencing a dictionary?
If you are adding another state then you are redrawing borders.
The Senate was originally meant to ensure that smaller states such as Wyoming had an equal part of the vote, so that a simple majority wasn't enough for a bill to pass and become law.
No, the original purpose of the Senate (and the 3/5ths clause) was to make sure the South had enough representation so they wouldn't get steamrolled by the more populous and anti-slave North.
>> Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators?
The answer is that the US is not a Democracy, and the Senate was created to limit the short term vacillations of the people.
When you think of representation in the House, think of representation of the States. The United States of America not the United People of America.
The answer is that the US is not a Democracy, and the Senate was created to limit the short term vacillations of the people.
When you think of representation in the House, think of representation of the States. The United States of America not the United People of America.
The US is a democracy, albeit a flawed one. The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers. Also, despite what the Senate was created to do, all Senators are now elected by citizens of their states. With the janky exception of the president you vote directly for rulers at every level of government.
>> The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers
That's incorrect just looking at the definition of the word Democracy. Don't look at Google's definition of the word. Google almost always gets their definitions imprecise or incorrect. Look in a dictionary, either online or one that you have.
You may also want to consider that you posted your comment on a page about gerrymandered elections.
That's incorrect just looking at the definition of the word Democracy. Don't look at Google's definition of the word. Google almost always gets their definitions imprecise or incorrect. Look in a dictionary, either online or one that you have.
You may also want to consider that you posted your comment on a page about gerrymandered elections.
I understand that I posted my comment on a page about gerrymandered elections, but there a polities in the world that are republics but not democracies: North Korea, China (at the national level), Turkmenistan.
Any polity where a country is at least de jure considered a public matter can call itself a republic.
Any polity where a country is at least de jure considered a public matter can call itself a republic.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy thus [1]:
> 1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
> 1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy
> 1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members
> 1.3 The practice or principles of social equality
You are mistakenly assuming that the only form or meaning of democracy is direct democracy (1.2 above). That is not the case.
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy
> 1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
> 1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy
> 1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members
> 1.3 The practice or principles of social equality
You are mistakenly assuming that the only form or meaning of democracy is direct democracy (1.2 above). That is not the case.
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy
A better question is why we have artificially capped our House of Representatives at 435 members. It has skewed the proportion of representation (and by extension, the electoral college) for decades.
Even the UK has 650 members in their lower house.
Even the UK has 650 members in their lower house.
Or, give each representative voting power proportional to the number of voters in their district. That way, no need for the added salary and chaos of 200+ more representatives, and you can get perfectly proportional representation.
I would prefer to give representatives spending power based on their district's taxes paid. It would solve a lot of long-standing squabbles...Republicans could put none of their constituents' taxes towards Planned Parenthood, the NEA and other liberal pet agencies and the Democrats could refuse to chip in towards military boondoggles and other Republican favorites.
Being able to look at a line item list of how your rep spent your Federal taxes might bring some much needed fiscal responsibility to government spending.
Being able to look at a line item list of how your rep spent your Federal taxes might bring some much needed fiscal responsibility to government spending.
That's exactly the point of the Senate.
The House is supposed to be the proportional one.
The House is supposed to be the proportional one.
You're misunderstanding, I think. It's not that it isn't by design. It's that the design principle is stupid.
I think you mean that you don't like the goal this design principle is intended to achieve.
No, I said precisely what I meant.
So you like the goal but not the means used to achieve it?
Why is the design flawed?
We have house that is proportional representation, another that is fixed representation - theoretically the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of each state (which is why they used to be appointed by the Governor of that state) and the House is supposed to represent the people of the nation. Is this a bad idea?
We have house that is proportional representation, another that is fixed representation - theoretically the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of each state (which is why they used to be appointed by the Governor of that state) and the House is supposed to represent the people of the nation. Is this a bad idea?
> Is this a bad idea?
It is a bad idea if you reject federalism (which grandparent might?). If instead of a union we are a mostly homogeneous country with a single identity, a single logical state -- then perhaps it doesn't make sense for the States to exist as independently as they do today.
It is a bad idea if you reject federalism (which grandparent might?). If instead of a union we are a mostly homogeneous country with a single identity, a single logical state -- then perhaps it doesn't make sense for the States to exist as independently as they do today.
People are the only ingredients of states. You don't add water or eggs. The state is equal to the formal sum of its people. Giving states with unequal populations equal representation is equivalent to giving its people disproportionate representation, which is a stupid idea.
That a Wyoming voter has 66.77 times the Senatorial power of Californian is an extremely stupid idea.
Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures, not the people directly. You can still have valid complaints about that, but it wasn't really an issue of "disproportionate representation" any more than, say, Congress voting to confirm Supreme Court justices or executive cabinet officials.
Yes.
But the needs of a state as a whole may be significantly different than the needs of one congressional district within the state. Consider that historically the Senate has been a voice of moderation to an often much more radical house.
But the needs of a state as a whole may be significantly different than the needs of one congressional district within the state. Consider that historically the Senate has been a voice of moderation to an often much more radical house.
One square mile, one vote!
Senators were chosen by the Legislature thereof.
It's not so much a bad idea as it is completely inaccurate.
It's not so much a bad idea as it is completely inaccurate.
The senators used to be elected by the state legislatures.
No, the House isn't proportional. There is a minimum of one House member per State: each State shall have at Least one Representative.
At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.
At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.
It was intended to continue to grow with population, I copied this from a previous comment of mine bc I'm lazy:
"The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1]
The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades.
[1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The....
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
"The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1]
The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades.
[1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The....
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand
Remember, the same people who wrote the Second Amendment wrote this. In any case, that was superseded post Civil War by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That allows for the Reapportionment of 1929. It would seem that that would override the 1 House member minimum but it doesn't because, because nothing.
Remember, the same people who wrote the Second Amendment wrote this. In any case, that was superseded post Civil War by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That allows for the Reapportionment of 1929. It would seem that that would override the 1 House member minimum but it doesn't because, because nothing.
Thus the "supposed to be". A better way to have phrased it would be quasi-proportional. I was suggesting that your beef really should be with the House.
The Senate represented the States. Senators until the 17th Amendment were appointed by State legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College with votes apportioned to the States. House members were popularly elected but only by white men; indeed the 1790 Naturalization Law said that only free white men could vote. Only 6% of the population could vote.
This is your original intent. This is your design.
This is your original intent. This is your design.
I suppose the principle of charity would lead us to believe they meant the House is more proportional compared to the Senate.
While it doesn't sound like a bad proposal and could probably get a strong majority of votes in some alternate dimension, the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote.[1]
The more cynical I become, the more I think the party in power doesn't actually want to solve any problems, they only want to focus on wedge issues to ensure they can use {rage, fear, some other emotion} to keep their party constituents engaged enough to vote but not enough to hold their feet to the fire on getting things done. Incumbents in Congress still have 95%+ re-election rates and in 2010 when those rates dipped, Congress was remarkably less productive than usual.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
The more cynical I become, the more I think the party in power doesn't actually want to solve any problems, they only want to focus on wedge issues to ensure they can use {rage, fear, some other emotion} to keep their party constituents engaged enough to vote but not enough to hold their feet to the fire on getting things done. Incumbents in Congress still have 95%+ re-election rates and in 2010 when those rates dipped, Congress was remarkably less productive than usual.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
> the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote
The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false. The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade.
In many ways, it was an arms race, and the Democrats chose not to focus on small and local districts and elections (instead, worrying about the "big picture"). As it turns out, politics trickles up, and small wins for Republicans eventually turned into big wins. To see a perfect exemplar of this, just look at Jon Ossoff's crushing loss last week.
There's an excellent NPR podcast about this very issue I listened to a few years ago.
The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false. The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade.
In many ways, it was an arms race, and the Democrats chose not to focus on small and local districts and elections (instead, worrying about the "big picture"). As it turns out, politics trickles up, and small wins for Republicans eventually turned into big wins. To see a perfect exemplar of this, just look at Jon Ossoff's crushing loss last week.
There's an excellent NPR podcast about this very issue I listened to a few years ago.
I liked every part of this comment up to "Jon Ossoff's crushing loss", which is crazymaking.
Unless I'm missing something very important, Ossoff was competing for a district that hadn't gone to a Republican by less than 20 points in the entire history of the district (it was redistricted sometime around ~2000).
Ossoff --- who is not a great candidate! --- took one of the most solidly Republican suburban districts in the country and turned it into a real horse race. What am I supposed to learn from that about Democratic strategic weakness?
Unless I'm missing something very important, Ossoff was competing for a district that hadn't gone to a Republican by less than 20 points in the entire history of the district (it was redistricted sometime around ~2000).
Ossoff --- who is not a great candidate! --- took one of the most solidly Republican suburban districts in the country and turned it into a real horse race. What am I supposed to learn from that about Democratic strategic weakness?
The fact that the Democrats outspent the Republicans by a factor of 7[1] and still lost. But that's exactly my point: the Democrats tried to manufacture a candidate in a time of dire need instead of first going for school boards, local municipalities, etc.
For what it's worth, Handel was a pretty terrible candidate too. Just goes to show how weak the Democratic strategists are. Obama won because he was an excellent candidate. Here's a novel idea for Democrats: get more awesome people to run for office.
[1] http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/19/the-race-for-georgia...
For what it's worth, Handel was a pretty terrible candidate too. Just goes to show how weak the Democratic strategists are. Obama won because he was an excellent candidate. Here's a novel idea for Democrats: get more awesome people to run for office.
[1] http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/19/the-race-for-georgia...
Read the story carefully. It's not a factor of 7, or even close to that. A larger proportion of Handel's support came from outside the campaign.
[deleted]
I think they meant any party in power won't allow it, because partly how they get in power, is gerrymandering.
There's some merit to this. Chances are the democratic leadership won't let this through. Doesn't hurt to try though.
The party is power is whichever party happens to have more votes at any given time. Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why would they risk doing something that might take them out of power?
> The party is power is whichever party happens to have more votes at any given time.
That's really not true in the political system of the US, even without partisan gerrymandering. Given that the entire point of partisan gerrymandering is to enlarge the distance between popular vote and gained seats, I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
> Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why would they risk doing something that might take them out of power?
You can win the electoral college / house / senate / whatever, despite being disadvantaged via gerrymandering (arguably e.g. the case for Obama in 2012). So that's not generally true.
That's really not true in the political system of the US, even without partisan gerrymandering. Given that the entire point of partisan gerrymandering is to enlarge the distance between popular vote and gained seats, I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
> Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why would they risk doing something that might take them out of power?
You can win the electoral college / house / senate / whatever, despite being disadvantaged via gerrymandering (arguably e.g. the case for Obama in 2012). So that's not generally true.
> You can win the electoral college / house / senate / whatever, despite being disadvantaged via gerrymandering
Of course you can always still overcome gerrymandering with enough political momentum. Gerrymandering currently tips the scales slightly in the direction of one party or another. Fixing gerrymandering would level the playing field (in theory).
Of course you can always still overcome gerrymandering with enough political momentum. Gerrymandering currently tips the scales slightly in the direction of one party or another. Fixing gerrymandering would level the playing field (in theory).
California, New Jersey, and Washington state, big demotractic states, don't gerrymander by state law. California is a big state, and when they moved to a non partisan commission, the republicans picked up a few seats.
The only red states to also do this are Arizona and Idaho.
The only red states to also do this are Arizona and Idaho.
I also caught some discussion about it on NPR. One argument, even as I am just as cynical as above poster; is that the Republicans did such a good job gerrymandering that best case they can keep their status quo and more than likely; they will be worse off. This was iirc because they balanced the demographics do well with their support base and any restructuring will actually hurt them. Based on the NPR bit which seemed to make a reasonable argument to me; an uniformed person, potentially they could back something like this.
Assuming the parent post hasn't been edited, it doesn't seem to say what you suggest it does (at least not by my reading).
So, before we succumb to knee-jerk reactions that continue the political dysfunction, can we all just put our energy and minds toward solutions? Revenge politics (they did it, so we will to! get them back!) hurts.
So, before we succumb to knee-jerk reactions that continue the political dysfunction, can we all just put our energy and minds toward solutions? Revenge politics (they did it, so we will to! get them back!) hurts.
Probably not, no. Tit for tat is optimal prisoners dilemma strategy.
Interesting. But, prisoners dilemma assumes that there's an authority that is imposing rules and punishments. In democracy, we are the authority and we can change the rules.
Cooperation can be optimal for an infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma depending on prisoner's time preference (discount factor).
> > > the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote
> The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false.
I don't think that's really the implication. At the moment it is pretty clear that the GOP currently overall benefits more from gerrymandering [1]. And they are in power, despite having lost the popular vote [2]. The GOP has control over the WH and both chambers, it'd therefore be political suicide to change the system now in a way that'd hurt them.
> The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade.
They've obviously also gerrymandered, I fail to see what that has to do with OPs point? Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it?
[1]: https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
> The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false.
I don't think that's really the implication. At the moment it is pretty clear that the GOP currently overall benefits more from gerrymandering [1]. And they are in power, despite having lost the popular vote [2]. The GOP has control over the WH and both chambers, it'd therefore be political suicide to change the system now in a way that'd hurt them.
> The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade.
They've obviously also gerrymandered, I fail to see what that has to do with OPs point? Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it?
[1]: https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
> Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it?
Not really. I'm arguing that most (in all honesty, probably all) gerrymandering complaints by Democrats are sour grapes because they got outplayed. In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources.
Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. I will say that sometimes, gerrymandering is racially- or religiously-motivated (SCOTUS heard a case on this a few months ago IIRC), so it can be very problematic in a few edge cases.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca...
Not really. I'm arguing that most (in all honesty, probably all) gerrymandering complaints by Democrats are sour grapes because they got outplayed. In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources.
Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. I will say that sometimes, gerrymandering is racially- or religiously-motivated (SCOTUS heard a case on this a few months ago IIRC), so it can be very problematic in a few edge cases.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca...
> Gerrymandering is honestly not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1].
Please provide more evidence for this claim. Just because it's true in CA doesn't necessarily mean it's true for the rest of the country.
Please provide more evidence for this claim. Just because it's true in CA doesn't necessarily mean it's true for the rest of the country.
> In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources.
I fail to see how that's an argument for anything. Unless maybe, if you want to argue that Delaney is voting against his personal interest.
> Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca....
That primarily seems to be an argument for it not being that a huge issue in CA. Or maybe that the mechanisms for redistricting weren't great in CA.
Given that a significant numbers of states have houses with significantly different party percentages than the popular vote suggests, this is a hard to understand argument.
I fail to see how that's an argument for anything. Unless maybe, if you want to argue that Delaney is voting against his personal interest.
> Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca....
That primarily seems to be an argument for it not being that a huge issue in CA. Or maybe that the mechanisms for redistricting weren't great in CA.
Given that a significant numbers of states have houses with significantly different party percentages than the popular vote suggests, this is a hard to understand argument.
The actual history of this decade of gerrymandering is that in 2010 Republicans were able to use anti-Obama tea party energy to capture a bunch of state houses right before the census redistricting. Republicans used that opportunity to lock-in control of the House probably until 2020. It's really just an accident of history. If the pattern repeats itself anti-Trump anger could give Democrats control of more state houses and lock in the next decade of redistricting. But democrats have been less ruthless on these kinds of things. For example by bringing up anti gerymandering initiatives like this one right before they gain power. Also I think Republicans seem to have more capacity for playing strategic long moves, for example, outside conservative money funded a California ballot measure a few years ago that made California's redistricting nonpartisan, thus taking away from Democrats the biggest state where they control redistricting, probably taking away 5-10 seats that Democrats could gerymander for themselves next cycle.
TL;DR The courts actually require states to intentionally create districts that have a majority population of minorities.
It's a difficult thing to manage. As a result of a Supreme Court ruling in regards to civil rights the states are not allowed to spread minority votes across district lines since it was determined that that doesn't give them a strong enough voice and doesn't allow them a united voice as well as the advancement of minority politicians in Congress.
States largely complied. But, as time has gone on people often believe that giving minorities their own districts actually hurts their political power because states put them all in their district, they get one politician and then the rest of the districts aren't a melting pot. So now there is a push to try to prevent states from districting based on racial lines, but the Supreme Court has already required them to do this. So it's a very fine balancing act the states have to go through, and in many cases they exploit the Supreme Court requirements/ruling to their political advantage.
And if you removed the racial districting you might actually lose minority representation in Congress in terms of number of minority Congressmen, which people don't want. So gerrymandering is this strange mix of affirmative action for Congress and political gamesmanship to protect a party's numbers in Congress.
It's a difficult thing to manage. As a result of a Supreme Court ruling in regards to civil rights the states are not allowed to spread minority votes across district lines since it was determined that that doesn't give them a strong enough voice and doesn't allow them a united voice as well as the advancement of minority politicians in Congress.
States largely complied. But, as time has gone on people often believe that giving minorities their own districts actually hurts their political power because states put them all in their district, they get one politician and then the rest of the districts aren't a melting pot. So now there is a push to try to prevent states from districting based on racial lines, but the Supreme Court has already required them to do this. So it's a very fine balancing act the states have to go through, and in many cases they exploit the Supreme Court requirements/ruling to their political advantage.
And if you removed the racial districting you might actually lose minority representation in Congress in terms of number of minority Congressmen, which people don't want. So gerrymandering is this strange mix of affirmative action for Congress and political gamesmanship to protect a party's numbers in Congress.
"Delaney also introduced the Open Our Democracy Act in the 113th and 114th Congress."
This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped in his house by two blocks.
http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...
http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...
Tu quoque. [0] One of the most powerful fallacies in politics. Shuts down countless reform attempts. Loved by the corrupt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
I'm not sure it's that effective these days. The American electorate just seems to expect that its leaders will be hypocrites and rewards them for it.
The world wouldn't run without at least a little hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy is inherently immoral. Some immoral actions are hypocritical, but some hypocritical actions are the right thing to do.
Can you give a concrete example where being an hypocrite would be the right thing to do?
Well, let's say I'm a doctor, I'm well convinced that smoking is quite harmful, but I find myself too addicted to manage to quit. Certainly, my nonetheless quitting is the best outcome. But telling people to quit despite not doing so myself is preferable to telling people not to quit, isn't it?
That is not a case of hypocrisy being the right thing, but rather the doctor doing the right thing in spite of the hypocrisy, not due to it.
Sure, I don't think you can find a case where hypocrisy is the right thing to do for the sake of hypocrisy. That's not really an interesting observation when clearly no one places a positive first-order moral value on hypocrisy.
Suppose I want to fight climate change, and I decide to make a documentary to raise awareness. The logistics of making a documentary is certainly going to result in some amount of additional carbon emissions being produced. I might be called a hypocrite for creating all these CO2 emissions to make a movie that tells people to emit less CO2.
But does that mean it was wrong of me to create this documentary? Not necessarily. If people watch my film and take action to reduce worldwide emissions, it's likely to cancel out the carbon cost of making the film in the first place.
But does that mean it was wrong of me to create this documentary? Not necessarily. If people watch my film and take action to reduce worldwide emissions, it's likely to cancel out the carbon cost of making the film in the first place.
I think that there has been a rise in America lately (and possibly the West in general) in the notion that in order to not be a hypocrite—in order to be taken seriously in any position—you must be ideologically pure. You can't, for instance, advocate for environmentalism if you have a nonzero carbon footprint, or advocate for the poor if you don't live a life of simple humility.
This is absurd in any practical sense, but it's being used to dismiss all kinds of people's arguments simply because they have to actually live in the real world, rather than some ideological fantasy land.
This is absurd in any practical sense, but it's being used to dismiss all kinds of people's arguments simply because they have to actually live in the real world, rather than some ideological fantasy land.
The US is quite hypocritical about interfering with the political process of other countries and now that it's happened to us, we're going nuts.
It's a good thing because if some countries went down a political path, it would be very adverse to our self interests and the interests of the world at large (Iran 1979, Cuba 1959, Germany 1939, etc).
Also, "the right thing to do," is a very relative term.
It's a good thing because if some countries went down a political path, it would be very adverse to our self interests and the interests of the world at large (Iran 1979, Cuba 1959, Germany 1939, etc).
Also, "the right thing to do," is a very relative term.
It absolutely is. One of the biggest arguments today about global warming is that since Al Gore lives in a mansion and rides in a personal jet, it's not real, because he personally isn't doing anything about it by moving(?) or flying commercial.
You should read some right winger stuff now and again. It's another world.
You should read some right winger stuff now and again. It's another world.
The right also believes that Donald Trump is going to sock it to the wealthy coastal elites, despite being a billionaire real-estate developer from Manhattan, and espouses family values while electing a man who bragged about the size of his penis in a presidential debate.
(I could give plenty of instances of liberal hypocrisy too, but that isn't the subject at hand.)
I think a more accurate model is that people pick their tribe emotionally, and then "their guy" can do no wrong while "the other guy" is the devil incarnate. All manners of hypocrisy are forgiven in the process.
(I could give plenty of instances of liberal hypocrisy too, but that isn't the subject at hand.)
I think a more accurate model is that people pick their tribe emotionally, and then "their guy" can do no wrong while "the other guy" is the devil incarnate. All manners of hypocrisy are forgiven in the process.
I think a more accurate model is that people pick their tribe emotionally, and then "their guy" can do no wrong while "the other guy" is the devil incarnate.
Rhetoric such as the use of logical fallacies like tu quoque is most effective on people who haven't picked a tribe yet. Dyed-in-the-wool supporters have the job of repeating the fallacies aimed at the other guy. It doesn't matter if they believe them or not.
Rhetoric such as the use of logical fallacies like tu quoque is most effective on people who haven't picked a tribe yet. Dyed-in-the-wool supporters have the job of repeating the fallacies aimed at the other guy. It doesn't matter if they believe them or not.
This is how I see it as well. People get so emotionally tied to a particular argument, whether that be gun control or abortion or whatever, and it becomes all consuming where all other discussion or ideas seem fall by the wayside as secondary.
I suspect for our only two viable political parties, that's a feature, not a bug.
I suspect for our only two viable political parties, that's a feature, not a bug.
The US was promoting itself a paragon of freedom while using slave labor like never before, after a massive genocide of the native people of America. "follow the money..."
[deleted]
See Chester Arthur - a man who had benefited extensively from the spoils system, helped put it out of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur#Civil_servic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur#Civil_servic...
I'm not sure how that is hilarious, it shows a little character in being willing to reign in a system that even got you into power.
It's more likely the other way around, showing very little character by using the rules of the game to his advantage to get into office and changing the rules of the game to stay in office.
But surely if he's in a gerrymandered district, passing these rules would make it harder for him to be re-elected? He's shooting himself in the foot to do the right thing.
I can respect that.
I can respect that.
This bill, if it becomes law, moves the gerrymandering from one commission to another. It doesn't stop gerrymandering. How does the new commission get formed? How long do people serve on it? Who appoints them? Do they get elected?
I'm not saying the system doesn't need to be reformed. It does. However, trusting people who say things that sound good, without evidence, is just following more politicians.
I'm not saying the system doesn't need to be reformed. It does. However, trusting people who say things that sound good, without evidence, is just following more politicians.
Whichever party is in charge of "reforming" or "eliminating" gerrymandering is simply looking to redraw districts in a "fairer" manner which oh by the way happens to benefit the party in question. This is how it always goes.
No the top-two open primary system would protect him, he's a wealthy white male Democrat in a formerly Republican district, his biggest threat is from the left in a closed primary.
We need more of this kind of thinking.
For example Trump should want a Russia prob instead of watering down sanctions as he is quietly doing. This is how governing is suppose to work, instead of what ever the hell you call the current state of affairs.
Eh. I'm against state-sponsored gambling.
That didn't stop me from using tens of thousands from a lottery-funded state scholarship.
I favor sales tax over income tax, but I still pay income tax. That's just the way the world works. I play by the laws but endevour to improve them.
That didn't stop me from using tens of thousands from a lottery-funded state scholarship.
I favor sales tax over income tax, but I still pay income tax. That's just the way the world works. I play by the laws but endevour to improve them.
He had to play by the current rules of the game to get in. That doesn't mean he agreed with the rules.
I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything.
If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Just moving the problem into committee obfuscates the problem.
If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Just moving the problem into committee obfuscates the problem.
There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today.
Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the opposition, and disparage while in power.
Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the opposition, and disparage while in power.
Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.
When districts are competitive, both parties need to run candidates which appeal broadly to the electorate, because when ideologues/radicals win one of the party’s primaries, they end up losing in the general election.
When districts are not competitive (and especially when unlimited secret campaign donations are allowed), the primary campaigns end up driving candidates toward radical positions, because the primary is the only competitive stage of the process.
What we’ve seen with the GOP is a party that has moved sharply away from mainstream opinion, subjects all of its officeholders to strict purity tests, and is largely controlled by religious hard-liners and big donors (oil, defense, pharma, banks, telecoms, etc.), and has become increasingly anti-intellectual and overtly bigoted in the past few decades.
When districts are not competitive (and especially when unlimited secret campaign donations are allowed), the primary campaigns end up driving candidates toward radical positions, because the primary is the only competitive stage of the process.
What we’ve seen with the GOP is a party that has moved sharply away from mainstream opinion, subjects all of its officeholders to strict purity tests, and is largely controlled by religious hard-liners and big donors (oil, defense, pharma, banks, telecoms, etc.), and has become increasingly anti-intellectual and overtly bigoted in the past few decades.
Insulating the commission means you won't allow a party to seize power and then cement it with gerrymandering, which is self-reinforcing. Cutting that loop means the commission can swing back and forth more easily and has the potential to even out. It can't possibly be worse than partisan gerrymandering.
> If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized?
I had a colleague (mathematician) who suggested presenting district-ers with a dramatically distorted map of the region to be districted in which neighbourhoods were unrecognisable, and all that could be seen was population density. One could gerrymander such a map all one pleased, but with (presumably) no better than random chance of thereby accruing a benefit, and random risk of suffering a detriment.
I had a colleague (mathematician) who suggested presenting district-ers with a dramatically distorted map of the region to be districted in which neighbourhoods were unrecognisable, and all that could be seen was population density. One could gerrymander such a map all one pleased, but with (presumably) no better than random chance of thereby accruing a benefit, and random risk of suffering a detriment.
This reminds me of the simple way my brother and I used to split treats (cake, chocolate, etc) evenly and without fights. One of us would cut, and the other would choose a piece. That way, you could bet your behind that whoever was cutting would be as even as humanly possible.
An application of the Veil of Ignorance!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
I don't think that necessarily solves the problem. You might end up with a state where congresspeople are geographically close to their constituents but non-representative in a number of other ways. For example, (arguably) representatives' political affiliations should roughly correspond to the affiliations of the state's voters — so if you had a state with 4m Democrats, 4m Republicans and 2m independents out of 10m voters total, you might have 4 Republican, 4 Democrat and 2 independent majority districts.
There are undoubtedly other factors to consider than proximity and party affiliation. The key takeaway is that districting is an opinionated act, algorithm or not. If we're going to "solve" gerrymandering, we need to figure out what "successful" districts look like first.
There are undoubtedly other factors to consider than proximity and party affiliation. The key takeaway is that districting is an opinionated act, algorithm or not. If we're going to "solve" gerrymandering, we need to figure out what "successful" districts look like first.
I know this one! It's the k-means algorithm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering
That would still help whichever party benefits from such a procedure. We've had debates over what the "right" algorithm is before, in regard to calculating the number of House representatives each state gets.
I'm reading a lot of resignation, and I feel it too. Why is it than when SOPA came out or when health care is on the line, people rally super hard, but when election reform is out, there's almost no effort? Why can't we get passionate about this too?
I think because there are relatively simple solutions to both the problems you mentioned
* SOPA - don't pass the bill.
* Health care - spend more, if necessary increase the deficit and we'll figure out the problem later through increased taxes or reduced spending elsewhere.
With electoral reform, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is. Everyone wants to stop gerrymandering but what's the alternative? An algorithm based on population and population density? That has its own set of issues. Heck, it's not straightforward even figuring out if a particular district has been gerrymandered or not. And in some cases, such gerrymandering is considered desirable - such as when it creates district where minorities are the majority.
When the problem is hard to define, hard to explain tangibly, hard to provide solutions for, it's no wonder that people don't get motivated to solve it.
* SOPA - don't pass the bill.
* Health care - spend more, if necessary increase the deficit and we'll figure out the problem later through increased taxes or reduced spending elsewhere.
With electoral reform, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is. Everyone wants to stop gerrymandering but what's the alternative? An algorithm based on population and population density? That has its own set of issues. Heck, it's not straightforward even figuring out if a particular district has been gerrymandered or not. And in some cases, such gerrymandering is considered desirable - such as when it creates district where minorities are the majority.
When the problem is hard to define, hard to explain tangibly, hard to provide solutions for, it's no wonder that people don't get motivated to solve it.
There are pretty low-hanging fruit out there, though.
Approval voting or ranking are almost universally agreed to be better than what we have (in most places--some places do have that). That alone would make a huge change.
Independent districting commissions would be a big step forward.
Election day holidays would help.
Actually, a lot of the stuff in this proposed bill would help.
You're right that there's open questions out there, but it's not like there aren't solutions that are obvious first steps.
Re: healthcare, I think that's probably even more complicated than electoral reform. For example, missing from your example are cost-cutting measures, like requiring more transparency in pricing and charging, and deregulating certain things to increase competition.
Approval voting or ranking are almost universally agreed to be better than what we have (in most places--some places do have that). That alone would make a huge change.
Independent districting commissions would be a big step forward.
Election day holidays would help.
Actually, a lot of the stuff in this proposed bill would help.
You're right that there's open questions out there, but it's not like there aren't solutions that are obvious first steps.
Re: healthcare, I think that's probably even more complicated than electoral reform. For example, missing from your example are cost-cutting measures, like requiring more transparency in pricing and charging, and deregulating certain things to increase competition.
I'd prefer the algorithm if it was public and neutral (or at least consistent). See for example the Shortest Splitline Algorithm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A
Moreover there are no apolitical choices of algorithms. When one party is urban and one party is rural, your choice of algorithm determines which party will benefit.
SOPA was not a core issue for many members of Congress so it was possible to keep it from passing. Healthcare reform was a core issue for most Democrats, who had the majority at the time, so it was possible for them to pass something.
I don't think enough people are exercised about this issue for it to have much chance of going anywhere any time soon.
I don't think enough people are exercised about this issue for it to have much chance of going anywhere any time soon.
I think that's what makes stuff like this so daunting... People are ignorant of the gravity of these things, and write them off as technicalities, but really they skew the entire dynamic of our political system so that existing polarizations are more readily exploitable, and so that attempts at working across the isle are unstable. I'm not saying there aren't other elements at play, but the election system needs major reform...
How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party. That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.
> How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party.
That doesn't solve the issue that there's different directions within a party, and that the choice within a party has significant influence. In the US there's a lot of daylight between e.g. Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Tom Cotton, all republicans, and they're not along a one dimensional axis. Whether you have 52 Collinses or 52 Cottons, will yield drastically different policies.
> That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.
(context for non-germans) In Germany, the issue I raise is partially addressed by also by having one party vote and one direct vote for an individual. And the difference between directly elected members, and the popular vote is then made up by creating new seats, allocating seats from a ordered list provided by each party. EDIT: To clarify, normally 50% is directly elected, 50% by share. If and only if there's a party share difference between directly elected and indirectly elected seats, then new seats are created to make up for the difference.
But the problem with such a system is that the Party has a lot of directional power, by establishing the order on that list...
That doesn't solve the issue that there's different directions within a party, and that the choice within a party has significant influence. In the US there's a lot of daylight between e.g. Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Tom Cotton, all republicans, and they're not along a one dimensional axis. Whether you have 52 Collinses or 52 Cottons, will yield drastically different policies.
> That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.
(context for non-germans) In Germany, the issue I raise is partially addressed by also by having one party vote and one direct vote for an individual. And the difference between directly elected members, and the popular vote is then made up by creating new seats, allocating seats from a ordered list provided by each party. EDIT: To clarify, normally 50% is directly elected, 50% by share. If and only if there's a party share difference between directly elected and indirectly elected seats, then new seats are created to make up for the difference.
But the problem with such a system is that the Party has a lot of directional power, by establishing the order on that list...
Part of that problem in the US is caused by the current electoral system naturally devolving into a two-party system. Under the German system multiple parties can sprout without having a spoiler effect.
Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this.
Also, the unintended consequence of such an electoral system is that it encourages extreme views, rather than moving towards the centre. Of course gerrymandered districts have the same effect, but centrism is worth striving for, I think. It ensures that a majority of people have a candidate who isn't far from their own views. You can see how proportional representation would help parties like the UKIP do far better than they otherwise would have, which is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation.
Also, the unintended consequence of such an electoral system is that it encourages extreme views, rather than moving towards the centre. Of course gerrymandered districts have the same effect, but centrism is worth striving for, I think. It ensures that a majority of people have a candidate who isn't far from their own views. You can see how proportional representation would help parties like the UKIP do far better than they otherwise would have, which is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation.
> You can see how proportional representation would help parties like the UKIP do far better than they otherwise would have, which is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation.
In the long run, what's in the best interests of the nation is for the government to fairly represent as much of the electorate as possible, not a fictional "middle ground."
In the long run, what's in the best interests of the nation is for the government to fairly represent as much of the electorate as possible, not a fictional "middle ground."
I agree with you in principle. But I also think in this particular case the UK has benefited from the UKIPs absence from Parliament.
> Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this.
Yes. On a federal level everyone has two votes, the first is for a candidate, the second is for a party. The direct vote is for roughly equal sized districts, the second for a party. Normally half of the seats are allocated by first, half by second vote. If the directly elected seats yield a significantly enough party-line difference across a state (Germany is federally organized), additional indirectly elected seats are added to make up for the difference.
Yes. On a federal level everyone has two votes, the first is for a candidate, the second is for a party. The direct vote is for roughly equal sized districts, the second for a party. Normally half of the seats are allocated by first, half by second vote. If the directly elected seats yield a significantly enough party-line difference across a state (Germany is federally organized), additional indirectly elected seats are added to make up for the difference.
I had to look up the details -- Germany actually uses a mixed proportional system. Each person votes for their preferred candidate in a local race and for their preferred party. Half the total seats are filled by the winner of the local races -- and the remaining half are allocated in proportion to the party votes in order of a pre-determined list of candidates produced by each party. For some parties -- the order of the candidates on the party list is voted on, for others the list order is decided by some central power broker. I guess this means the local races could still be gerrymandered -- however with more total parties I think gerrymandering might be harder to preserve in general ...
> Half the total seats are filled by the winner of the local races
That's not quite true. The seats are distributed by party votes, but if a party wins more local races than it would get seats from the party votes, the size of parliament is scaled up, preserving the ratios until the party has seats for all their local winners. (Which is why the current Bundestag has 631 seats, despite the "base size" being indeed 598, twice the number of districts. And yes, that growth could go pretty high if things go badly, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the algorithm was changed again). There is also a distribution between states, which makes the entire thing even more complicated.
An older model did not scale up with preserved ratios, but just added the "overhang" of local winners on top, which could cause bad effects where votes had negative value. But the base number of seats also was distributed according to the ratio of the second votes.
Who gets the seats for a party from that state prefers the local winners, and then follows the local candidate list.
That's not quite true. The seats are distributed by party votes, but if a party wins more local races than it would get seats from the party votes, the size of parliament is scaled up, preserving the ratios until the party has seats for all their local winners. (Which is why the current Bundestag has 631 seats, despite the "base size" being indeed 598, twice the number of districts. And yes, that growth could go pretty high if things go badly, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the algorithm was changed again). There is also a distribution between states, which makes the entire thing even more complicated.
An older model did not scale up with preserved ratios, but just added the "overhang" of local winners on top, which could cause bad effects where votes had negative value. But the base number of seats also was distributed according to the ratio of the second votes.
Who gets the seats for a party from that state prefers the local winners, and then follows the local candidate list.
If the person you voted for isn't elected to Congress, and you have a "representative" from then other party... Do you then have a representative who will listen to you?
In the mixed systems like the German (well, most Western democracies) your vote helped elect someone from a party you choose.. even if it's not the person you personally voted for.
In the mixed systems like the German (well, most Western democracies) your vote helped elect someone from a party you choose.. even if it's not the person you personally voted for.
Surely guaranteed to go nowhere.
Solid start though. Even if the redistricting measure was dropped, a federal holiday for election day and top-two primaries would clear out a lot of the clogs in our election systems. I'm not sure the top-two measure is constitutional though.
Oh I agree that it's a good start and gerrymandering is bad, but can you honestly imagine this type of bill passing in this political environment? Congress has a, what, 12% approval rating?
I think it's being presented in the hope that a future Congress will run with it. Or that his constituents will appreciate his ideas. It is beyond this Congress to fix the system they've brazenly manipulated for their own benefit.
Current US law requires racial gerrymandering to ensure blacks are able to elect black congressmen. This bill does not obviate that requirement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-a...
Your article it out of date. Racial gerrymandering is the one kind of gerrymandering that is not allowed according to the supreme court[0]. Representatives will go out of their way to argue that their gerrymandering is purely partisan because that's totally legal – for now.
[0] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/supreme-court-no...
[0] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/supreme-court-no...
That is incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision is with respect to "overconcentration" of blacks, in a context where, when divided, they were able to elect their preferred candidates. Their guiding principle is still that blacks must be neither diluted enough to make their votes irrelevant in "their own" areas, nor concentrated enough to make their votes irrelevant outside - as the dissent notes, this itself amounts to a racial gerrymander (you don't get to club yourself in the head when drawing district lines and "forget" that certain areas are heavy in both blacks and democrats). They did not overrule Gingles, they cite the state's action as contravening it.
Unsurprisingly their jurisprudence on this is a shitshow as they try to square this circle while pretending like it is some sort of neutral antidiscrimination provision while also attempting to secure a minimum threshold of black political power.
Unsurprisingly their jurisprudence on this is a shitshow as they try to square this circle while pretending like it is some sort of neutral antidiscrimination provision while also attempting to secure a minimum threshold of black political power.
Expect this to become a much bigger issue leading up to the redistricting that comes after the 2020 census.
This is my election district: http://imgur.com/a/C1UmB. It's in the dictionary next to "illegal gerrymandering." The southwest lobe near D.C. is predominantly African American, while the northeast lobe near Annapolis is predominantly Caucasian. Though I can't figure out who is being disenfranchised.
Apparently Republicans.
http://www.fairdistrictspa.com/updates/efficiency-gap-votes-...
http://www.fairdistrictspa.com/updates/efficiency-gap-votes-...
I don't know why this got downvoted. Maryland is infamously gerrymandered to the detriment of Republicans. Both parties abuse redistricting.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were the intent. The Annapolis area has a lot of rural places, and the district would be a Republican district if a big chunk of urban PG County weren't glommed on.
I'm political in outlook, sympathetic to the proposal, and like to see politics on HN as long as it has sort of hacker angle to it.
On the other hand, IMO this sort of story crosses the threshold into general politics, which in the long term degrades HN and hence doesn't really belong here.
On the other hand, IMO this sort of story crosses the threshold into general politics, which in the long term degrades HN and hence doesn't really belong here.
Better than open top-two primaries: ranked-choice voting.
Better than districting by committee: multi-member districts.
Election Day holiday: good, but throw in automatic voter registration.
https://represent.us/ http://fairvote.org
Better than districting by committee: multi-member districts.
Election Day holiday: good, but throw in automatic voter registration.
https://represent.us/ http://fairvote.org
Multi-member districts are what we have in Spain. While in theory they increase the proportionality of the election results, the downside is that there is no clear representative for a district. To whom do I write to complain when my province has 7 seats in parliament? What if it has 30?
I know this is a digression but can somebody tell me what happened yesterday? Bear with me because I'm not much of a lawyer and I don't get a lot of time to do my original research so I just get it from TV.
I'm flabbergasted that the SC was 9-0 in their decision. I guess I just don't understand. I thought the lower courts had applied the ban unanimously and it was made in accordance with the law. Is there a way to challenge yesterday's decision further?
I'm flabbergasted that the SC was 9-0 in their decision. I guess I just don't understand. I thought the lower courts had applied the ban unanimously and it was made in accordance with the law. Is there a way to challenge yesterday's decision further?
Will this help reducing de-facto duopoly of incumbent parties?