Print

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

[Rolepgeek]

Trump's less religious, but I'm doubting that he'll be using the whole 'compassionate conservatives' shtick Bush went with. He's much more focused on nationalism than conservatism per se.

I do find it very telling that I believe both Bush and Trump did significantly better with minorities than most other Republican candidates, and that this contributed to their victory; if the Republicans actually switched into a social/religious conservative stance while making it clear they weren't just 'all white all the time', that they would probably dominate pretty easily. Plenty of conservative minority populations, after all...

[Shadowlord]

sorry I just saw this... do some Republicans not know what irony is?

Because he is saying "Hail Trump" while lifting his arm up. Seriously guys... Your making John Oliver's job too easy.

Last Week Tonight is on vacation until ... January something? I forget.

[wierd]

Those populations tend to be poor though.

Politics is about power, and wealthy plutocrats have lots of it. Many are white conservatives, and have a neurotic need to have their egos stroked constantly. That's why the GOP strokes them off the way they do.

EG, do you think the Koch brothers would be so keen, if black christians were suddenly given fan service (instead of them?)

[smjjames]

So, apparently someone leaked to the WSJ that there is an internal battle on the team over who is going to be Secretary of State. Orig. WSJ article (not paywalled)

Just the usual 'palace/court intrigue' I suppose, though stuff like that aren't really supposed to leak out. Also, Nikki Haley is top candidate to be ambassador to the UN.

[Shadowlord]

>their gerrymandering
not a partisan practice, that, despite what a lot of people believe

It is, regardless of which side is doing it. IIRC the Republicans happen to have taken control of enough state governments in or by 2010 to control enough of the process of redrawing the districts that they've given themselves a massive advantage in elections for the House.

[wierd]

That does not make the practice partisan. It just means one side likes to abuse the shit out of it more than the other. Neither side has clean hands, which is what I took the original point as.

Really, we should just come down hard on it as a nation, and demand that districts be rectangles on a grid, and be done with it.

[Antioch]

That does not make the practice partisan. It just means one side likes to abuse the shit out of it more than the other. Neither side has clean hands, which is what I took the original point as.

Really, we should just come down hard on it as a nation, and demand that districts be rectangles on a grid, and be done with it.

Or you get a system that doesn't allow gerrymandering like all sane nations.

[WealthyRadish]

>their gerrymandering
not a partisan practice, that, despite what a lot of people believe

It is, regardless of which side is doing it. IIRC the Republicans happen to have taken control of enough state governments in or by 2010 to control enough of the process of redrawing the districts that they've given themselves a massive advantage in elections for the House.

It wasn't that they happened to be in a situation to do it though, there was a nationally concerted effort to take control of as many state governments as possible in time for the redistricting, with the express purpose of gerrymandering. It was an unprecedented level of coordination and flagrant abuse of the system, even though gerrymandering has been with us since independence.

I think Democrats defend their gerrymandering as being more positive, like grouping minorities together so they actually get representation instead of being drowned by the white suburbs. That said, I don't buy for a moment that they aren't also abusing the system for their own gain and have no problem disenfranchising republican voters if they can, but at least in the last half century they have done so on a decidedly smaller scale than Republicans.

[smjjames]

That does not make the practice partisan. It just means one side likes to abuse the shit out of it more than the other. Neither side has clean hands, which is what I took the original point as.

Really, we should just come down hard on it as a nation, and demand that districts be rectangles on a grid, and be done with it.

An extreme way of doing it would be having one representative per county, but considering we have over 3k counties, that'd be an absolute nightmare way to govern.

On a serious note, yeah, we need to have a system that is as resistant to gerrymandering as possible.

>their gerrymandering
not a partisan practice, that, despite what a lot of people believe

It is, regardless of which side is doing it. IIRC the Republicans happen to have taken control of enough state governments in or by 2010 to control enough of the process of redrawing the districts that they've given themselves a massive advantage in elections for the House.

It wasn't that they happened to be in a situation to do it though, there was a nationally concerted effort to take control of as many state governments as possible in time for the redistricting, with the express purpose of gerrymandering. It was an unprecedented level of coordination and flagrant abuse of the system, even though gerrymandering has been with us since independence.

Yep, it's that they conspired on a big scale for the sole purpose of gerrymandering. If that isn't a sign that gerrymandering has absolutely gotten out of control, I don't know what is.

[WealthyRadish]

Statewide multimember districts elected by party list with more total seats (500 would make sense) would eliminate the problem entirely and break the two party system for good, but fat fucking chance of that happening.

[Mephansteras]

California has an independent council with a mix of democrats, republicans, and independents on it with some strict rules about how district lines can be drawn. The system was put in place a few years back and it seems to be working ok.

[smjjames]

Statewide multimember districts elected by party list with more total seats (500 would make sense) would eliminate the problem entirely and break the two party system for good, but fat fucking chance of that happening.

Wouldn't that require ranked choice or instant runoff voting or something? It's probably more likely that the two party/FPTP system will be slowly chipped away until it reaches a point that it changes over rather than a massive outright all-at-once reform.

edit: How would that deal with the tiny states vs big states like California, Texas, or New York or large area but low density states like Alaska (though that's an extreme example, it's population is actually similar to the Dakotas or Vermont)? 10 might not be enough for a big state like Texas or California, but it'd be rather over-represented for small states like RI or Mass.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/ben-carson-cabinet-hud-trump-231772 eh? I'm pretty sure even the most loyal-to-Trump Senator would question Carsons ability to do the job (hint, he has none), I don't see him having a chance of confirming him. If the Senate does, it'd be like 'wtf cronyism?!?'

[Loud Whispers]

sorry I just saw this... do some Republicans not know what irony is?

Because he is saying "Hail Trump" while lifting his arm up. Seriously guys... Your making John Oliver's job too easy.

John Oliver's making his job easy

Yesteryear he was unknown, an insignificant maggot. Now he's a political force

This is why mainstream media normally doesn't give attention to fringe elements, this is why in the UK we don't let jihadists have a friendly chitchat on Tele. Cos mainstream media gives mainstream attention that translates into mainstream acceptance
What I'm hammering here is that mainstream media is lucky this guy is lame as fuck, otherwise they're pretty much going to end up making literal hitler a mainstream murrican force one smug oliver at a time

[wierd]

The sad part, is that the US used to understand this. See the main themes of mainstream television from 60 years ago. It portrayed idealized personalities with a thick saccharine aftertaste.(Joan cleaver is the damn poster child, as is Martha Brady) These days? Freaking mama June from here comes Honey booboo.

When you hold up images in mainstream culture, people will subconsciously emulate it. We used to understand this, then something happened, and we lost our collective minds. We decided that human trash is normal, and gave it center stage in popular culture. And here we are, with reality TV star Donald trump as president of the US.

[WealthyRadish]

Statewide multimember districts elected by party list with more total seats (500 would make sense) would eliminate the problem entirely and break the two party system for good, but fat fucking chance of that happening.

Wouldn't that require ranked choice or instant runoff voting or something? It's probably more likely that the two party/FPTP system will be slowly chipped away until it reaches a point that it changes over rather than a massive outright all-at-once reform.

edit: How would that deal with the tiny states vs big states like California, Texas, or New York or large area but low density states like Alaska (though that's an extreme example, it's population is actually similar to the Dakotas or Vermont). 10 might not be enough for a big state like Texas or California, but it'd be rather over-represented for small states like RI or Mass.

The US congressional elections have three major issues: single-member districts, election by plurality, and massive population size per district. The single-member districts mean that each district only elects one seat, plurality means that the individual candidate with the most votes is elected (FPTP).

Single-member FPTP districts result in a large number of wasted votes. The crux of the issue is that the system doesn't distinguish between winning by a landslide and winning by a thin margin; 51%/49% is identical to 85%/15%. The losing 49% in the first case got absolutely nothing, while the bulk of the winning 85% had their strong winning majority wasted by being confined to only their own district (along with the 15% of losers who also got absolutely nothing).

Even if the national vote totals end up roughly matching the representation (which they don't), it hides the vast number of wasted votes canceling each other out in this ridiculous great game of outside money influencing what should be local elections. Incumbents in safe districts barely bother to campaign (and often even run literally unopposed), while millions of dollars originating from national party and PAC funds are spent bombarding the people who happen to live in a district that might flip.

The only problem that ranked voting addresses here is the spoiler effect, as well as randomly getting the odd independent in office (often by accident on the part of the voters). I remember mainiac saying a while ago that ranked choice in Maine was pretty pointless, and I disagreed; I think he's right now, it really isn't enough.