|
De Nomolos posted:poo poo, you're right. I've watched T2 10x as much as The Terminator. That quote was from memory, though. That's fair, it's the better movie.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:But, of course, the coin is only flipped once. And it's each and every individual Senate race that is determined by coin flip, not one coin for the entire thing. No, that's a misunderstanding of the probability presented by the models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Joementum posted:No, that's a misunderstanding of the probability presented by the models. Do they include 50/50 as D-hold?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Do they include 50/50 as D-hold? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Have you tried looking at polling data? The core question is how deeply the house members have drunk their own kool-aid. I think the act of passing all those lunatic ideas convinced many of them they were actually being reasonable. The debt ceiling / shutdown fight was the realization point for me there, too many republicans simply had no conception of the level of catastrophe they were encouraging by toying with default. Which is why a republican senate scares me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
The House should be slightly more sane after the election because the Republicans are expected to pick up seats. Part of the problem in the House right now is that Boehner only has an 18 seat majority and there are 20-30 hardliners who will vote against the concept of the federal government continuing to exist, so the leadership can't pass anything. If they widen their majority to the point where they can pass bills without the hardliners, and they're going to gain moderates by knocking off moderate Democrats, tensions around things like the budget and debt ceiling will lessen.
Joementum fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
hahaha, how are they picking up more seats in the House
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:hahaha, how are they picking up more seats in the House Democrats are terrible at politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
It's a midterm, so Democrats in blue and purple state rural districts who rode Obama's coattails in 2012 are in close races.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Democrats are terrible at politics. More the Tea Party wave came at the worst possible time to even think about getting seats back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:More the Tea Party wave came at the worst possible time to even think about getting seats back. Irrelevant to the house.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
There's some more awful news, as if the Democrats not holding onto the Senate wasn't enough. Republicans stand to gain even more control of State Legislatures:quote:Republicans have the opportunity to take control of a record number of state legislative chambers across the country this year, as Democrats play defense in unfavorable terrain. Yay for redistricting, a thing that serves no purpose in the modern age, just like voter ID laws. It seems like it'll take a long, long time to undo any damage that happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:
-Alabama, 1918.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:-Alabama, 1918. I should have been more specific, redistricting by giving it control to a political party serves no practical purpose. It should be done by computer, neutrally. Not to separate voting blocs and consolidate political power, Republican or Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:I should have been more specific, redistricting by political party serves no practical purpose. It should be done by computer, neutrally. Not to separate voting blocs and consolidate political power, Republican or Democrat. There's no such thing as a neutral algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There's no such thing as a neutral algorithm. We used to have the same political fight over apportionment, but we were able to come up with a neutral enough algorithm for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We used to have the same political fight over apportionment, but we were able to come up with a neutral enough algorithm for that. The easiest solution is to add more districts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Why do we have state legislatures do the redistricting, instead of say a commission of judges?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We used to have the same political fight over apportionment, but we were able to come up with a neutral enough algorithm for that. No. We came up with an algorithm which was politically acceptable. Apportionment algorithms, just like districting algorithms, have built in choices that define what their biases are. If you district for compactness, you generally pack urban districts together, for example. Equal area districting has an opposite bias, tending to split city constituencies apart and allowing one city to overwhelm multiple districts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Why do we have state legislatures do the redistricting, instead of say a commission of judges? Keep in mind, you're talking about a country where judges run for their seats in partisan elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Keep in mind, you're talking about a country where judges run for their seats in partisan elections. When you remind me about that, it doesn't seem as good a solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There's no such thing as a neutral algorithm. So, instead of trying to find the most neutral way possible you'd rather keep the system we have now. Where a party not supported by the majority can dictate law until 2022, even when that party would not have won a Presidential election in over a decade (obviously assuming they lose the next one)? I'd rather have some bias than have a party run completely roughshod with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Why do we have state legislatures do the redistricting, instead of say a commission of judges? Because none of these other re-districting models really show that they've done anything to help. California's non partisan re-districting panel pretty much disqualifies anyone who has or will have a passing interest in politics or running for office. Which means the only people qualified to hold it are clueless idiots who know nothing about politics who will be easily manipulated by paid lobbyists who pose as Joe Q Public at their public re-districting meetings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There's no such thing as a neutral algorithm. They say the same thing about climatologists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. We came up with an algorithm which was politically acceptable. Apportionment algorithms, just like districting algorithms, have built in choices that define what their biases are. If you district for compactness, you generally pack urban districts together, for example. Equal area districting has an opposite bias, tending to split city constituencies apart and allowing one city to overwhelm multiple districts. You basically rephrased what I just said. The mathematics at play here fundamentally prevents a system that achieves all potential goals. So we can just pick one that's neutral enough. Jerry Manderbilt posted:Why do we have state legislatures do the redistricting, instead of say a commission of judges? A couple of states do commission based redistricting, some with non-partisan or citizen redistricting commissions. However, there are lawsuits against these systems as well. notthegoatseguy posted:Because none of these other re-districting models really show that they've done anything to help. California's non partisan re-districting panel pretty much disqualifies anyone who has or will have a passing interest in politics or running for office. Which means the only people qualified to hold it are clueless idiots who know nothing about politics who will be easily manipulated by paid lobbyists who pose as Joe Q Public at their public re-districting meetings. Where are on earth are you getting that nonsense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Irrelevant to the house. The Tea Party drew the House districts that are being fought over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The core question is how deeply the house members have drunk their own kool-aid. I think the act of passing all those lunatic ideas convinced many of them they were actually being reasonable. The debt ceiling / shutdown fight was the realization point for me there, too many republicans simply had no conception of the level of catastrophe they were encouraging by toying with default. I'm sure that lots of them, perhaps even enough to get 218, think that poo poo like Medicare vouchers and PPACA repeal are a good idea. But their leverage in forcing it to happen that they don't have now is getting both chambers to pass a budget and daring Obama to veto it. And I don't think much has changed since they lost the 2013 showdown. Also particularly with PPACA repeal, it's almost impossible now and they know it. People are getting subsidies, using the new exchanges, etc., and the sky isn't falling. FAUXTON posted:They say the same thing about climatologists. Name the neutral algorithm then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:So, instead of trying to find the most neutral way possible you'd rather keep the system we have now. Where a party not supported by the majority can dictate law until 2022, even when that party would not have won a Presidential election in over a decade (obviously assuming they lose the next one)? I'd rather have some bias than have a party run completely roughshod with it. No, I just feel it's important to acknowledge that there's no neutral algorithm - any algorithm will involve political choices. Trying to mask those choices behind "a computer decides so it's neutral" is how people get very non-neutral outcomes publicly accepted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:The Tea Party drew the House districts that are being fought over. After a gerrymander has been used in one election and the gains have been got, it's far easier for the majority party to lose seats than it is to gain additional ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, I just feel it's important to acknowledge that there's no neutral algorithm - any algorithm will involve political choices. Just because a policy entails political choices in it doesn't mean the result must be partisan. Sure, compactness et al. has consequences, but if we just had a methodology and stuck with it, we wouldn't have the political gerrymandering we have today. Even as biased and problematic as a "fill in from the top left" method would be, it would be considerably more neutral than the current system and wouldn't favor the ruling party over the minority party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just because a policy entails political choices in it doesn't mean the result must be partisan. And selecting which algorithm to use would certainly not be a political process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And selecting which algorithm to use would certainly not be a political process. Yes, and as several states have shown, an entirely possible one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, and as several states have shown, an entirely possible one. Right. And as I said, they reached a politically acceptable compromise based on the composition of the state legislature at the time of selection. (Which, uh, sounds a lot like hand-drawn redistricting.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. And as I said, they reached a politically acceptable compromise based on the composition of the state legislature at the time of selection. Except we then wouldn't re-do that every 10 years? I mean, are you arguing that the Arizona system, for example is biased towards one party or another? I get that there's not a perfect system, but there is actual real world evidence that we can create far more politically neutral systems than the one we use in most states. (And of course, you're completely ignoring states with referendums etc.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except we then wouldn't re-do that every 10 years? I mean, are you arguing that the Arizona system, for example is biased towards one party or another? Oh good, so whichever party won the first fight gets to win forever? The Arizona system is biased towards whichever party the "independent" member of the redistricting committee leans towards, meaning that both parties (who nominate the other 4 members) are trying to find the member who is most likely to favor them while appearing neutral. It's not systemically biased in the way a specific algorithm might be, but it has similar political balance problems to a traditional legislative approach - they're just more subtle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Yay for redistricting, a thing that serves no purpose in the modern age, just like voter ID laws. It seems like it'll take a long, long time to undo any damage that happens. I too wish that our districts had remained the same since Alaska and Hawaii were added. Would have left PA with something like 8 more seats than it currently does, California with half its current amount. edit: Ahh gently caress you already clarified and had a long debate over it. Cliff Racer fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Oh good, so whichever party won the first fight gets to win forever? Do you realize how your second paragraph kinda counters your first? Do you believe there are no less-partisan options than having the legislature do it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:After a gerrymander has been used in one election and the gains have been got, it's far easier for the majority party to lose seats than it is to gain additional ones. 8 years in? Sure. 4 years? I'm skeptical. If it only benefited you for one of the five elections you got with it, people wouldn't do it. Political parties tend to be a bit better than that at playing the long game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:8 years in? Sure. 4 years? I'm skeptical. If it only benefited you for one of the five elections you got with it, people wouldn't do it. Political parties tend to be a bit better than that at playing the long game. Seats that have been locked in tend to remain so unless there's a wave election (in which case you suddenly lose badly), but the election after redistricting is when the potential for new gains are at their maximum. I suppose it's somewhat different since R candidates are no longer on the other side of the ballot as Obama, but in any case the maps don't show many tossups that could be gerrymander-caused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
My dad was reading the local newspaper today. Buried below the fold of page 8 of the classifieds is "public notice" from the city supervisor of elections (a Republican shill) is ~notice of challenged voter registration~ and a list of a bunch of names. It says in the fine print at the bottom that if you don't show up to the city elections office and provide proof of your eligibility to vote, your name will be purged from the Florida voter rolls. Who the hell is going to see that? Oh, right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:21
|
|
