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

[Owlbread]

Problem is after 200 years of the system, the state lines were simply accepted as arbitrary. Look at the east coast, then the west. Larger, flatter, rectangular when possible. The States, like the US as a whole, is a strange mirror mixture of arbitrary lines and loyalty to the state based on the fact that well they live there! Furthermore, there are not many well defined groups. As mainiac illustrated,even places that have these movements have significant opposition. No area in the US is monolithic, the three big states all have areas of significant political discrepancy, but that is seen as asign of strength, not weakness. US law is,our attempts to be, majority rules, but minority rights.

Majority rules and minority rights doesn't really hit it with me, I'm afraid. I tend to prefer very weak federal governments and very powerful provinces as a method of combating globalization. "Neutering" federal governments is my first port of call.

Also, the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia from a single peaceful state to violently feuding smaller states is not the best example to give, especially when trying to recommend it.

And it is even more ridiculous to suggest that things would go anything at all like they did in Yugoslavia with genocide and mass murder if the USA got more states.

I think for this to work it would take radical reorganization of things like the Senate. It can't really exist in its current form with more states.

Actual motives revealed.

What would they be sir?

[RedKing]

And yes, the joke usually is that we would end up with at least a Dakota and a Carolina and a greater Virginia to balance the numbers.

You take that back right now. There's only one route to a unified Carolina, and it involves flying vampire squid.



The thing that gets me is this: every political pundit (and many politicians) will admit that gerrymandering at both the state and Federal levels has just gotten ridiculous, and that's it contributed to the sort of shitstorms like we just went through.

So why the hell hasn't getting rid of that become a thing? Yes, yes, I know -- it's in the interest of currently elected officials to keep the districts heavily skewed to preserve their ability to get serially re-elected. But why hasn't there been a bigger popular outcry?

[lue]

And yes, the joke usually is that we would end up with at least a Dakota and a Carolina and a greater Virginia to balance the numbers.

You take that back right now. There's only one route to a unified Carolina, and it involves flying vampire squid.

I hereby strike from my statement the words "a Carolina" and put in its place "a larger North Carolina" .

The thing that gets me is this: every political pundit (and many politicians) will admit that gerrymandering at both the state and Federal levels has just gotten ridiculous, and that's it contributed to the sort of shitstorms like we just went through.

So why the hell hasn't getting rid of that become a thing? Yes, yes, I know -- it's in the interest of currently elected officials to keep the districts heavily skewed to preserve their ability to get serially re-elected. But why hasn't there been a bigger popular outcry?

Ads. Seriously, I think if we have just the right amount of money pumped into GERRYMANDERING AND YOU advertisements, we just might get more of an outcry. "GERRYMANDERING ROBS YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION."

[mainiac]

Ads. Seriously, I think if we have just the right amount of money pumped into GERRYMANDERING AND YOU advertisements, we just might get more of an outcry. "GERRYMANDERING ROBS YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/22/how-the-myth-of-messaging-gets-politicians-into-trouble/

Just because it sounds good in your head doesn't mean convincing people is a fast process.  Look at the amount of money that has gone into the national compact route for direct presidential elections.

[Strife26]

And yes, the joke usually is that we would end up with at least a Dakota and a Carolina and a greater Virginia to balance the numbers.

You take that back right now. There's only one route to a unified Carolina, and it involves flying vampire squid.

 
And the only route to a unified Dakota is selling South Dakota to Russia or something.

[Mephansteras]

So why the hell hasn't getting rid of that become a thing? Yes, yes, I know -- it's in the interest of currently elected officials to keep the districts heavily skewed to preserve their ability to get serially re-elected. But why hasn't there been a bigger popular outcry?

I don't know. California put in a more reasonable system a few years back. We get a committee with some people from each main party and some independents who draw up the borders now, and they have some pretty strict guidelines about what is allowed.

I don't know that it is ideal, but the lines are a good bit more reasonable now that they used to be. Maybe more states will follow suit?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm telling you all, the only way to do it without cycles of constantly increasing bias followed by short periods of crackdown on said bias is to hand it over to the computers.

[Lagslayer]

I'm telling you all, the only way to do it without cycles of constantly increasing bias followed by short periods of crackdown on said bias is to hand it over to the computers.

Computers are not impartial because somebody has to program and maintain them.

[RedKing]

I'm telling you all, the only way to do it without cycles of constantly increasing bias followed by short periods of crackdown on said bias is to hand it over to the computers.

"The House recognizes the Honorable Representative PQL-6, from Missouri's log(n) District...."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm telling you all, the only way to do it without cycles of constantly increasing bias followed by short periods of crackdown on said bias is to hand it over to the computers.

Computers are not impartial because somebody has to program and maintain them.

Open source publicly owned shortest splitline districting.

Even if it isn't completely immune, it will be a significant step up, and harder to degrade.

[mainiac]

Redistricting is done at the state level.  How do you convince one political party to unilaterally disarm and make it certain their opposition will control the house?

[Lagslayer]

I'm telling you all, the only way to do it without cycles of constantly increasing bias followed by short periods of crackdown on said bias is to hand it over to the computers.

Computers are not impartial because somebody has to program and maintain them.

Open source publicly owned shortest splitline districting.

Even if it isn't completely immune, it will be a significant step up, and harder to degrade.

Also unfeeling and heartless. Unless you let humans intervene, then it becomes self-defeating.

[Sheb]

Why would you care?

Anyway, couldn't the Federal government rule about it? The Supreme Court stating gerrymandering in unconstitutional or something?

[Descan]

I'm telling you all, the only way to do it without cycles of constantly increasing bias followed by short periods of crackdown on said bias is to hand it over to the computers.

Computers are not impartial because somebody has to program and maintain them.

Open source publicly owned shortest splitline districting.

Even if it isn't completely immune, it will be a significant step up, and harder to degrade.

Also unfeeling and heartless. Unless you let humans intervene, then it becomes self-defeating.

What? No, seriously, what? Why do we care if districting is "unfeeling and heartless", HOW is it unfeeling and heartless (somehow letting people gerrymander is full of feeling and caring?) And self-defeating? What?

[mainiac]

Why would you care?

Anyway, couldn't the Federal government rule about it? The Supreme Court stating gerrymandering in unconstitutional or something?

How exactly do you envision such a ruling reading?