Essentially the vote of two US citizens does not count equally if you count everyone.
If one lives in an area with more illegal immigrants, that US citizens votes foe him/her but also for the non voters in the area. This is not a ‘one person one vote’ situation and it’s a real concern if you believe in equal representation.
Ideally you’d have a citizenship question and you count only citizens for electoral college allocation and everyone for non electoral college matters. But that creates concerns of undercounting etc.
Counting illegal immigrants in the census helps Democrats because liberal states have more of them. This is just a fact. You may think we should still count as many of them in the census, that's fine. But don't pretend there is no issue with one side of the argument.
Mentioning motives of one side but not the other is naive. It also prevents us from having a real conversation about the trade offs at hand.
I agree. It would be much better if both sides were at least honest.
for example, the Democrats could say "we understand some electoral college votes will be indirectly allocated to illegal immigrants, we also understand that because liberal states have more illegal immigrants it will help the left more than the right, but that's the price to pay for counting every actual US citizen."
The republicans could say, 'we want to make sure only US citizens count in terms of votes, and we will lose some actual US citizens plus we will undercount illegal immigrants (which is useful in other, non voting related ways) in order to ensure that.'
Then we can have a conversation. The way this dialog is being had, with liberal statisticians making 'scientific arguments' and republicans attacking electoral integrity is just a mess.
a. They had the same information as everyone else, so what would they figure out in their ‘review’ that readers wouldn’t?
B. It’s really the double standard that is the problem here. If you do it do it for this then do it for everything else, including the myriad stories about Trump that are posted based on ‘rumors’, ‘leaks’, anonymous sources etc. Whether you like Trump or not should not matter if you are honest with yourself!
Funny thing is, this story was not ‘trending’ on twitter but the meta story (totally with no evidence) that this was the result of Russian hackers who gave the content to Rudy was trending! That tells you everything about why this is so inconsistent and thus either grossly incompetent or malicious.
I admire your optimism. My view is that people that have bet their political or journalistic careers on a certain matter or position are very reluctant to embrace opposite facts (consciously or unconsciously).
As another example - there were huge campaigns to get women to get screened for breast cancer. Turns out there is little to no benefit in doing so based on extensive long term scientific studies (very surprising to me but that’s what it is). It is taking forever for that fact to come out and it’s not even that controversial.
this is why nobody trusts the news. And also why global warming is so controversial. If, hypothetically, some credible scientists tomorrow did some research that showed global warming is not as bad as we thought, would that get reported widely? No way.
Even if your articles are 100% fact based, selection bias in which stories to report and which to promote is a huge issue.
It's why we love places like HN, also - both for the un-editorialized ranking of stories as well as the ranking of comments.
My CS systems PhD advisor used to say, 'you waste the abundant resource' in systems design. Lots of CPU cycles available, lots of bandwidth available (except when not!) - so waste it and save programmer time.
At least, in theory.
It's not about knowing assembly or not. It's resources, time, cost, money, ROI.
The biggest reason is that there has been almost no productivity gain for cleaning a hotel in the last 20-30 years. It takes same amount of time and effort. So why would the wages go up if productivity is not up?
The productivity gains went to either things that got automated (e.g. speciality equipment operator - wages are higher but there are less jobs) or knowledge workers (software engineering salaries have skyrocketed).
Essentially the vote of two US citizens does not count equally if you count everyone.
If one lives in an area with more illegal immigrants, that US citizens votes foe him/her but also for the non voters in the area. This is not a ‘one person one vote’ situation and it’s a real concern if you believe in equal representation.
Ideally you’d have a citizenship question and you count only citizens for electoral college allocation and everyone for non electoral college matters. But that creates concerns of undercounting etc.