Originally posted by astralis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2018 American Political Scene
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostWho gets helped, who gets hurt will depend on 2020. If the GOP holds the House, the Dems lose, if the Dems take the House the GOP loses as districts get redrawn every 10 years based on the census."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostIf SCOTUS throws out gerrymandering and makes districts a federal issue it will be Congress who draws up the new law."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
The Democrat neighbor that allegedly assaulted Senator Rand Paul has been charged Federally.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr...ber-congress-0
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThats a double edged sword, both parties use gerrymadering and its primary use is to preserve minority-magority districts. The SC's decsion could well end these racial feifdoms so critical to leftist politics.
“As correctly pointed out by Nate Silver, members of Congress are increasingly insulated by the increasing polarization of their districts. Ever-larger victory margins reflect ever-safer re-election races.
However, Silver has also restated a common belief. He states that partisan gerrymandering is a symmetric problem, i.e. both Democrats and Republicans do it. Although both sides are potentially motivated, only one side has taken redistricting to extremes.”
Among the science-based premises that support the author’s conclusions are gems like this: “A minimum condition for a “representative” outcome is that within a Congressional delegation, the party receiving more votes should end up with more Congressional seats.”
This is followed by an idiot-proof description of what happened in the 2016 House elections:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D % vote _ R % vote _ _ D seats _ R seats
Entire House _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.4% _ _ _ 49.6% _ _ _ _201 _ _ 234
Arizona _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 45.6% _ _ _ 54.4% _ _ _ _ _5 _ _ _ _4
Michigan _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52.7% _ _ _ 47.3% _ _ _ _ 5 _ _ _ _ _9
North Carolina _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.9% _ _ _ 49.1% _ _ _ _4 _ _ _ _ 9
Pennsylvania _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.7% _ _ _ 49.3% _ _ _ _ _ 5 _ _ _13
Wisconsin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.8% _ _ _ 49.2% _ _ _ _ _3 _ _ _ _5
—Sam Wong, Princeton Election Consortium, Dec 30, 2012; updated Sept 4, 2017: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...es-do-it-myth/
Further examples of the same table, but for the 2012 House races, are here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...r-republicans/
For those needing remedial work, the Brennan Center for Justice offers a test of your gerrymandering awareness skills: https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ts-cover-alone
More of that nasty scientific thinking here, at Scientific American (Carrie Arnold, June 7, 2017): https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ave-democracy/Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Curiously enough, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires districting at all, it only addresses apportionment.
Theoretically, districting could be abolished altogether, and other methods could be used. Proportional representation being one of them, i.e. the number of representatives sent from each state to Congress is based on their party's proportion of the vote in a statewide election. Which would incidentally also make third parties viable.
Highly unlikely, of course, as it's doubtful members of Congress would ever pass a law so contrary to their individual political self-interests."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostI googled “do both parties (ab)use gerrymandering?” and here’s what I found (YRMV):
“As correctly pointed out by Nate Silver, members of Congress are increasingly insulated by the increasing polarization of their districts. Ever-larger victory margins reflect ever-safer re-election races.
However, Silver has also restated a common belief. He states that partisan gerrymandering is a symmetric problem, i.e. both Democrats and Republicans do it. Although both sides are potentially motivated, only one side has taken redistricting to extremes.”
Among the science-based premises that support the author’s conclusions are gems like this: “A minimum condition for a “representative” outcome is that within a Congressional delegation, the party receiving more votes should end up with more Congressional seats.”
This is followed by an idiot-proof description of what happened in the 2016 House elections:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D % vote _ R % vote _ _ D seats _ R seats
Entire House _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.4% _ _ _ 49.6% _ _ _ _201 _ _ 234
Arizona _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 45.6% _ _ _ 54.4% _ _ _ _ _5 _ _ _ _4
Michigan _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52.7% _ _ _ 47.3% _ _ _ _ 5 _ _ _ _ _9
North Carolina _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.9% _ _ _ 49.1% _ _ _ _4 _ _ _ _ 9
Pennsylvania _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.7% _ _ _ 49.3% _ _ _ _ _ 5 _ _ _13
Wisconsin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50.8% _ _ _ 49.2% _ _ _ _ _3 _ _ _ _5
—Sam Wong, Princeton Election Consortium, Dec 30, 2012; updated Sept 4, 2017: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...es-do-it-myth/
Further examples of the same table, but for the 2012 House races, are here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...r-republicans/
For those needing remedial work, the Brennan Center for Justice offers a test of your gerrymandering awareness skills: https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ts-cover-alone
More of that nasty scientific thinking here, at Scientific American (Carrie Arnold, June 7, 2017): https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ave-democracy/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostCuriously enough, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires districting at all, it only addresses apportionment.
Theoretically, districting could be abolished altogether, and other methods could be used. Proportional representation being one of them, i.e. the number of representatives sent from each state to Congress is based on their party's proportion of the vote in a statewide election. Which would incidentally also make third parties viable.
Highly unlikely, of course, as it's doubtful members of Congress would ever pass a law so contrary to their individual political self-interests.
Comment
-
More on classified Clinton emails and how Hillary has been faking her technology ignorance.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...linton-emails/
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostProportional representation, virtual congress and repealing the 17th Amendment would fix a lot of these issues. It would diffuse power away from Washington. Have a general election to decide proportions, then do primaries to decide who from each winning party goes. It would simply reverse the current order of voting. Then have those representatives spending 70% of their time in their home state away from Washington. Have them go to DC on a rotating basis except for certain periods like the SotU. The House could keep roughly 100 members in Washington to run committees at all times. Having senators answerable to the states would absolutely break K Street.
The 17th Amendment was enacted because the old way of doing things failed. Failed badly. It wasn't working the way it was intended and it made state politics toxic.Last edited by Ironduke; 21 Jan 18,, 21:30."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
It looks like Australia is starting to deal with USA type issues.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-42643834
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostGenerally the way proportional representation system works is that there's a list of candidates, selected by a mechanism beforehand. There's no reason voters couldn't rank candidates preferentially in a primary before moving on to the general election.
The 17th Amendment was enacted because the old way of doing things failed. Failed badly. It wasn't working the way it was intended and it made state politics toxic.
Comment
Comment