Print

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

[penguinofhonor]

I think the Citizens United decision would be a good example here. If there were an unconstitutionality penalty, it could currently be applied to people trying to reform campaign finance. That sounds like a nightmare.

[Frumple]

I'm pretty sure that already happens, really. It's called court fees. They bankrupt people, if perhaps not as quickly or as often as a number of other things. And I think the judge can occasionally decide to dump the onus of paying them entirely on one side of the legal conflict? Which is perhaps even more like what's being discussed. We just don't call them "cost of wasting the court's time" fees.

[penguinofhonor]

I don't think it's really similar. We're talking about penalties to legislators who pass a law, while a failed court case to overturn a law would be paid for by the plaintiff (a citizen) and the government (wherever the heck the court's paychecks come from).

[PTTG??]

In a functioning democracy, there IS a penalty to legislators who waste time and money on illegal laws. They get unelected, possibly even recalled. Sadly, the United States is not a functioning democracy.

[mainiac]

People get pissed at elected officials all the time.  We have a bi-annual tradition where you declare you will throw the bums out.

[darkrider2]

In a functioning democracy, there IS a penalty to legislators who waste time and money on illegal laws. They get unelected, possibly even recalled. Sadly, the United States is not a functioning democracy.

Isn't the incumbency victory rate like 90%? It's ludicrous, most senators practically have life-long jobs, hell, it'd be more effective to just put term limits on every elected office. But good luck passing that law!

[mainiac]

hell, it'd be more effective to just put term limits on every elected office

Many states have tried this.  The power devolves to the people who know what they are doing, i.e. the lobbyists.  Yay!  We sure showed those elected officials who are boss.

Isn't the incumbency victory rate like 90%? It's ludicrous

It's ludicrous that voters dont massively change their opinions every two years?  While the redistricting process has problems, this is a horrible metric of those problems.

[RedKing]

Isn't the incumbency victory rate like 90%? It's ludicrous

It's ludicrous that voters dont massively change their opinions every two years?  While the redistricting process has problems, this is a horrible metric of those problems.

Yeah, it's so much more believable that the population has self-sorted into preexisting political districts which have been drawn by legislators. I know *I* choose my home/apartment/tent-down-by-the-river based on it having an electoral representation that perfectly mirrors my own views.

[Shadowlord]

Careful, that heavy a dose of sarcasm might cause contact burns.

[Reelya]

I think anti-Gerrymandering rules are a needed component. Have some objective criteria to decide between two alternate sets of district borders within a state. e.g. a formula which weights minimizing population variation between districts and minimizing total border length, with the added constraint of not actually bisecting any counties (to avoid the issue of being in different congressional districts if you move across the street).

There you'd have a simple and clear set of rules which would produce a set of sensible districts, and circumvent an entire level of corruption. "Redistricting" is a big thing that gives an incumbent party too much power to rig things in their favor.

[Frumple]

... y'know, I just realized I don't think I've ever actually seen an argument defending the state of gerrymandering as is. Any of you happen to know of something approaching a reasoned one?

[Cruxador]

... y'know, I just realized I don't think I've ever actually seen an argument defending the state of gerrymandering as is. Any of you happen to know of something approaching a reasoned one?

They tend to boil down to a lesser evil argument of "if we didn't gerrymander, the enemy would win". Consider that reasoned or not as you will.

[Reelya]

That's probably because Gerrymandering is the negative epithet. Anyone supporting it would talk about the need for "Redistricting", which you can find articles in support of.

There's been a huge amount of redistricting to protect incumbents of both parties. "Term limits" is not really the answer to the creation of "safe seats" for both parties, because an excess of "safe seats" turn every race into an effective one-party election. The solution is to have objective and blind criteria for which redistricting plan is better. This would basically eliminate the partisan interest in the entire redistricting system.

[Frumple]

Sure, sure, euphemisms and whatnot. I'm sure there's some out there, but would you happen to know of any that's actually approaching decent?

[smjjames]

I think anti-Gerrymandering rules are a needed component. Have some objective criteria to decide between two alternate sets of district borders within a state. e.g. a formula which weights minimizing population variation between districts and minimizing total border length, with the added constraint of not actually bisecting any counties (to avoid the issue of being in different congressional districts if you move across the street).

There you'd have a simple and clear set of rules which would produce a set of sensible districts, and circumvent an entire level of corruption. "Redistricting" is a big thing that gives an incumbent party too much power to rig things in their favor.

Then lets put it to practice and see how it works out. In a virtual simulation that is. Also, take a look at a map, some counties are pretty big.

Of course though both sides will want to nudge the rules in their favor one way or another, so, how do you come up with a solution that is truly neutral and is difficult for either party to nudge the lines in their favor.

Though yeah, it'd be best to go by something simple, such as a mathematical equation, I mean, theres patterns in nature all over and surely we can develop some kind of pattern equation, thing, dunno.

Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.    Ack