Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[lue]

We need to undo gerrymandering and replace it with a fair and likely mathematical solution. I happen to like the shortest-splitline algorithm (helpful video). This page has a nice look at what those congressional districts would look like with the algorithm. Pick your favorite states to see what your districts look like! (Colorado, as mentioned later on the linked page, is kinda special and interesting.)

That's how we get a fairer representation of the people of the state, and that's how we can drive out extremism on any side. (I should point out that, at least the method I've linked to, doesn't actively attempt to create easily-contested districts, but rather avoids actively creating very safe districts.)

* scriver puts another mark in the "Tea Party - Greatest Satirists Ever" column.

I wish the Tea Party was satire. I wish...

[freeformschooler]

Plot twist: the entire conglomerate of House Tea Party members is actually the writing staff of the Onion. This multi-decade heist is paying off well in Onion T-shirts as the only thing crazier than a vocal minority taking an entire government hostage is a vocal minority taking an entire government hostage then writing suspiciously spot-on satire about it.

[Descan]

What would it be like if the states had the 2-senator senate, but the house was decided across the entire country, districted via shortest splitline?

Not saying it's a good idea, or a bad idea. Just wondering what that'd be like.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's different enough from the current system that there is effectively no telling what the result would be.

[lue]

Descan: I sometimes wonder about that too, only considering the representation inequality in the Senate, I'd rather move to turn the Senate into a nationalistic House of Reps. That way, we have:

House of Reps. : The "lower house", will of the 50 states on their own. Fairly divided state districts.
Senate : The "upper house", will of the country as a whole. Fairly divided national districts.

The number of seats stay the same, as always. Basically the House of Reps stays the same, but with no gerrymandering, and the Senate is retooled into a snapshot of the American political mindset as a whole, in a way.

Just an idea...

[FearfulJesuit]

Nah, there's nothing wrong with the Senate being disproportional, I don't think. It's certainly the case that the Founders intended it to be disproportional.

The real problem is that Senators (and representatives, but that's different) don't actually represent anything concrete or real. Some states, like Maine or Arkansas or Oklahoma or Montana, are pretty uniform, with only one or two major cities, are all more or less within a homogenous cultural region, and make sense as national subunits. Meanwhile, Florida, New York, California, Oregon, and Illinois are not natural divisions at all, often contain more than one major city (and in a couple cases do not even contain the entirety of that city's region), and straddle more than one cultural sphere. Some states (New Hampshire and Vermont? The Dakotas?) should be lumped together. Until states are natural divisions (I recommend just choosing the nation's major metropolitan areas and making them capital of their own states and regions), the Senate doesn't make any sense.

[lue]

Indeed. I guess in the Constitutional debates I would've been squarely in the "proportional representation" camp . I remember some talk a while ago about how the disparity is larger than when the Constitution was first created, but that's natural I guess.

Your national subunits talk made me think:

There are always proposals floating around to make D.C. the 51st state since forever, for various headache-reducing reasons, in regards to what D.C. can and can't do. I've always thought it, and perhaps other cities, should just become city-states. My mind is thinking of the kreisfreie städte in Germany, but don't quote me, as I'm not too familiar with German governmental divisions. I really should brush up on my German, there's no excuse anymore.)

Of course, any proposals must maintain one important, unbendable rule of the United States: 50 states is a nice round number. We like nice round numbers of states.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Nah, there's nothing wrong with the Senate being disproportional, I don't think. It's certainly the case that the Founders intended it to be disproportional.

Considering we radically amended the Senate from being an American analogue to the House of Lords into a fully democratic institution, what the founders wanted for it is long gone. The time to break with them and fully reform American democracy is upon us.

[Lord Shonus]

The issue with directly proportional representation is that there's a number of relatively low-population viewpoints that are extremely critical to the running of the country. Agriculture and mining, for example. It isn't just the big corporate ventures either, as small farmers already take it in the ass when rich city folk decide that they want "Country Living", but don't like the barnyard odors and early morning noises. A strictly proportional system would marginalize such viewpoints even further.

[misko27]

http://www.redistrictinggame.org/launchgame.php

God damn you I wasted 3 hours just now.

The Tea Party comes up with its own health plan...which is basically Obamacare with moar socialism.

What?

My theory is the Tea-Party was and is essentially a opposition movement at heart; their heart and soul is anti-establishmentarianism. They thrive where they are now, with enough power to make a mess and claim a mandate, but not enough to have no enemies. In a vacuum all factions here would moderate.  The Tea-Party is a libertarian movement in name, but alone they would essentially agree with Obama on many points. They have moved so far to the right to oppose Obama that they have lost their minds.


Go! Electoral Reform!
Unrepentant corrupt party officials sent out Political blockading!
Electoral Reform used Bi-Partisan Committee!
Political blockading used Filibuster!
It's super effective!
Electoral Reform is paralyzed!
Political blockading uses Political Flame war!
It's super effective!
Electoral Reform has been


There will most likely not be Electoral reform for sometime.

[Xantalos]

http://www.redistrictinggame.org/launchgame.php

God damn you I wasted 3 hours just now.

The Tea Party comes up with its own health plan...which is basically Obamacare with moar socialism.

What?

My theory is the Tea-Party was and is essentially a opposition movement at heart; their heart and soul is anti-establishmentarianism. They thrive where they are now, with enough power to make a mess and claim a mandate, but not enough to have no enemies. In a vacuum all factions here would moderate.  The Tea-Party is a libertarian movement in name, but alone they would essentially agree with Obama on many points. They have moved so far to the right to oppose Obama that they have lost their minds.

So they're Brian from that family Guy show?

[Lord Shonus]

Lisa Simpson would be a better fit, I think.

[SalmonGod]

I think that for many of them, bringing down the government really is their agenda.  Libertarianism bordering on anarcho-capitalism has seemed to me like the strongest growing political stance in the country for the last few years, and every proponent I've ever met has been dogmatic to the extreme.  They believe that government should only exist to maintain a standing army purely for national defense, and to enforce contracts.  Every other power of government should be dismantled.  This is what the Tea Party represents, is it not?  Hell, all of the articulate libertarians I've spoken with also believe that fiat currency shouldn't exist, so crashing an economy based on it even aligns with their agenda.

And it's been observed more than once and reported by people claiming to be privvy to the inner workings of the right-wings most influential think thanks that it's pretty easy for them to set up a win-win situation.  They participate in governance and push directly for their agenda.  Where pushing directly for their agenda fails, they ensure that whatever does happen is fucked up to make the government look bad, thereby growing support for their political view.

[Descan]

Things would be so much better if everyone was a consequentialist, where they do something because it is good, instead of the whole "We have to do what is right, nevermind what is good!"

Good meaning whatever it is you want. The general answer is "Net increase of [preferential] happiness," though in a political instance it could also be a strong national defence, or an increase in small business, or more purchasing power for the average citizen, or increased education and healthcare penetration... Doesn't matter -what- it is you hold as good results, as long as you're doing things because they'll lead to it, not because of some bloody principle of "Government is always bad!" or "Private markets are always greedy!" even if voting against an increase in government leads to a worse country.

...

[/rant]

[lue]

The issue with directly proportional representation is that there's a number of relatively low-population viewpoints that are extremely critical to the running of the country. Agriculture and mining, for example. It isn't just the big corporate ventures either, as small farmers already take it in the ass when rich city folk decide that they want "Country Living", but don't like the barnyard odors and early morning noises. A strictly proportional system would marginalize such viewpoints even further.

Valid point. I think there's a reason we went with bicameral in the end . My equilibrium senses are telling me if we were to have an additional legislative body specifically to invert the disparity, so big states posses said disparity, everything would be nice and balanced. (Example: give the disparately large representation of the least populated state to the most populated state, etc.)  But that's a silly idea and, I suspect, unnecessary as well.

I just had a flash of brilliance(?) on the topic of reforming Congress: one house for every possible way to create and shape a legislative body. There's the current Senate and the current House; then there's the House of Lords-esque previous Senate, and the nationally elected version of the current House. That's 4 so far; are there any others?

More on topic, I think the only reasonable hope we have for fixing either of the debt ceiling or the shutdown would be to have enough moderate Republicans in the House to rely on for either:

• Böhner standing up for what the country needs, and oppose the insane agenda of a small minority of the Republican party.
• Two successful discharge petitions.