Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Petr
Oct 3, 2000
I don't think a single person who has responded to GlyphGryph read his idea correctly.

Hint: It doesn't involve either paying everyone in America $40k or sending random people to Congress.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Petr posted:

I don't think a single person who has responded to GlyphGryph read his idea correctly.

Hint: It doesn't involve either paying everyone in America $40k or sending random people to Congress.

How about a compromise: sending everyone in a state to congress for that sweet congressional pension?

Petr
Oct 3, 2000

Fried Chicken posted:

Please define what you think the role of government is

Do you really want to slog through a dissertation on the role of government written in SK's bizarre, happyelf-esque pidgin?

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

GreyPowerVan posted:

Right, I've known that, but with people more educated today (at least in most areas :eng99:) why is it still this way?

The real answer is because it takes a lot of effort to get rid of the EC and effectively it is already gone (faithless electors are rarely a thing).

Fritz Coldcockin
Nov 7, 2005
I really don't get what Nate Silver's problem is. That fat gently caress Dean Chambers didn't manage to set him off, but a guy using slightly different methodology makes him go full-on Nerd Hulk?

He was so bloodless and dispassionate when analyzing the last three elections, even in the face of that moron and his "Unskewed Polls", but he's getting his feathers all up because Sam Wang said critical things about him in a blog post a long time ago. It's like if Nixon became a pollster instead of a politician.

Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Oct 2, 2014

WhiskeyJuvenile
Feb 15, 2002

by Nyc_Tattoo

Alter Ego posted:

I really don't get what Nate Silver's problem is. That fat gently caress Dean Chambers didn't manage to set him off, but a guy using slightly different methodology makes him go full-on Nerd Hulk?

Classic nerd poo poo. Chambers was a joke so there wasn't any real challenge to his manhood analytical methodology.

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



computer parts posted:

The real answer is because it takes a lot of effort to get rid of the EC and effectively it is already gone (faithless electors are rarely a thing).

There's a framework in place to completely eliminate it in all but technicality (some states have amended their constitutions to pledge their electors to the national popular vite contingent on states controlling a plurality of EVs saying the same thing).

Unsurprisingly these states are mostly high-population and blue states.

Munkeymon
Aug 14, 2003

Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.



My Imaginary GF posted:

Who writes the algorithm?

I've actually been tinkering with one in my spare time. It's kinda fun.

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



Really though Silver has a point. Any model that assigns a 6-sigma probability (or whatever it was) to any event that has ever happened since the big bang is a model with wrong assumptions.

Unfortunately being a public intellectual who didn't come out of academia he has the disadvantage of lacking the training of putting all criticism in hilarious academic purple prose.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Munkeymon posted:

I've actually been tinkering with one in my spare time. It's kinda fun.

Have you ever voted in a party primary? Munkeymon wants to SELL his biased computer program to the DEMONCRATS/REPUBLICANTS to lock in their majority for life.

Vote (not Munkeymon) for Governor

Munkeymon
Aug 14, 2003

Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.



My Imaginary GF posted:

Have you ever voted in a party primary? Munkeymon wants to SELL his biased computer program to the DEMONCRATS/REPUBLICANTS to lock in their majority for life.

Vote (not Munkeymon) for Governor

Eh, it'll go up on GitHub at some point and that will somehow result in even fewer people knowing it exists than knew before. Such is life.

Evil Fluffy
Jul 13, 2009

Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Pohl posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWuMp6TRcYM

Holy poo poo, Bill Clinton did an ad for Grimes.

This guy might still be president if we didn't have term limits.

ComradeCosmobot
Dec 4, 2004

USPOL July
On the topic of redistricting and gerrymandering, SCOTUS has some good news for you today! They just agreed to take a case that will decide if independent nonpartisan redistricting commissions are unconstitutional, potentially overturning a century-worth of precedents!

ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Oct 2, 2014

zoux
Apr 28, 2006


In a 5-4 decision...

JT Jag
Aug 30, 2009

#1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver
gently caress.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

zoux posted:

In a 5-4 decision...

I don't see how partisan districting is unconstitutional. In fact, I see it as more constitutional: a legislature should decide upon maps, and if they can't agree, don't go to the swearing in cerimony while the other side can't force a quarum call.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

My Imaginary GF posted:

I don't see how partisan districting is unconstitutional. In fact, I see it as more constitutional: a legislature should decide upon maps, and if they can't agree, don't go to the swearing in cerimony while the other side can't force a quarum call.

S...Scalia-sama?

SubponticatePoster
Aug 9, 2004

Every day takes figurin' out all over again how to fuckin' live.
Slippery Tilde
Where's that Whiskey brand whiskey?

JT Jag
Aug 30, 2009

#1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

My Imaginary GF posted:

I don't see how partisan districting is unconstitutional. In fact, I see it as more constitutional: a legislature should decide upon maps, and if they can't agree, don't go to the swearing in cerimony while the other side can't force a quarum call.
Whether partisan districting is unconstitutional or not (It isn't by any measure) isn't what the Supreme Court will be addressing.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

zoux posted:

S...Scalia-sama?

Hold on now, your first reaction was

zoux posted:

I'm sure Scalia could explain why you're wrong.

Seems like we've got the first quantum supreme court justice on our hands.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Yeah I misread your opinion.

There are 14 states that use these commissions, so I guess it won't be a complete sea change.

max4me
Jun 15, 2003

by FactsAreUseless

FizFashizzle posted:

In Laos you can drink Laos, and pay for it in Laos!

I was in Laos and the money was kip, god I felt like a millionaire

Evil Fluffy
Jul 13, 2009

Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I don't see how partisan districting is unconstitutional. In fact, I see it as more constitutional: a legislature should decide upon maps, and if they can't agree, don't go to the swearing in cerimony while the other side can't force a quarum call.

The precedent they're almost certainly going to overturn is that "legislature" includes votes by the citizens when they have the authority to do so. IE: State gives citizens the power to vote for X by referendum, citizens vote for X, X now becomes law.


Just like Hobby Lobby they'll probably later decide to say their decision affects everything. So if a state did something like, say, ban fracking via referendum in certain locations then that ban will be null and void.

SirKibbles
Feb 27, 2011

I didn't like your old red text so here's some dancing cash. :10bux:

Petr posted:

Do you really want to slog through a dissertation on the role of government written in SK's bizarre, happyelf-esque pidgin?

What the gently caress is your issue use the ignore button you baby.

SubponticatePoster posted:

Where's that Whiskey brand whiskey?

Moonshine will do for this no need to waste alcohol,but we're doomsaying too soon maybe it'll work out.

JT Jag
Aug 30, 2009

#1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

zoux posted:

Yeah I misread your opinion.

There are 14 states that use these commissions, so I guess it won't be a complete sea change.
14 states is over a quarter of all the states. I did a little research: 8 states use commissions to determine Congressional districts, with 6 more using the commissions to draw the state legislature districts only. And those 8 states are responsible for 93 representatives, or 21.3% of the total in the House. The states that have committees create only their legislature's districts also has an impact on Congress, as that lowers the likelihood of supermajorities in those states.

Slate Action
Feb 13, 2012

by exmarx

Basically the Democrats are never getting the House back, are they.

Berke Negri
Feb 15, 2012

Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao


JT Jag posted:

gently caress.

Welp, there goes my long term plans of cultivating a public presence as a registered independent for a sweet sinecure on a redistricting board in five years. :smith:

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

JT Jag posted:

14 states is over a quarter of all the states. I did a little research: 8 states use commissions to determine Congressional districts, with 6 more using the commissions to draw the state legislature districts only. And those 8 states are responsible for 93 representatives, or 21.3% of the total in the House. The states that have committees create only their legislature's districts also has an impact on Congress, as that lowers the likelihood of supermajorities in those states.

It's not great but it's not as bad as if you know, 40 states used commissions.

They try to pass one of these every session here and honestly neither side wants one.

Evil Fluffy
Jul 13, 2009

Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Slate Action posted:

Basically the Democrats are never getting the House back, are they.

Nope, because the GOP is simply better at politics than the Democrats will ever be.


Isn't California's current Democrat state government supermajority the result of a commission-drawn map?

Heck Yes! Loam!
Nov 15, 2004

a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Evil Fluffy posted:

Nope, because the GOP is simply better at politics than the Democrats will ever be.


Isn't California's current Democrat state government supermajority the result of a commission-drawn map?

It isn't entirely a result of the commission. The GOP wanted to throw the commission map out, but failed. California just hates the GOP, and they have almost no footholds left here.

JT Jag
Aug 30, 2009

#1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Evil Fluffy posted:

Just like Hobby Lobby they'll probably later decide to say their decision affects everything. So if a state did something like, say, ban fracking via referendum in certain locations then that ban will be null and void.
The contention here is regarding a particular sentence in the Constitution regarding district-creation authority only. I don't think the Supreme Court will be capable of making that broad a decision.

Evil Fluffy
Jul 13, 2009

Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

JT Jag posted:

The contention here is regarding a particular sentence in the Constitution regarding district-creation authority only. I don't think the Supreme Court will be capable of making that broad a decision.

Who's going to stop them? Obama? :lol:

Unzip and Attack
Mar 3, 2008

USPOL May

Evil Fluffy posted:

Nope, because the GOP is simply better at politics

No, they aren't. In 1999 readers of the NY Post declared Bill Clinton to be the 2nd most evil person of the 20th century, just behind Hitler and far above Stalin and Pol Pot.

It's not that the Democrats are "bad" at politics. It's that the Republican Party is backed by people who are completely irrational and don't actually participate in "politics" as much as they "do their best to actively sabotage and destroy political processes".

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011

Joementum posted:

John Adams wanted the title of the President to be "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties", for example.

In a world where Heads of State were un-ironically called "His Majesty George the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith" or "His Most Christian Majesty Louis XVI, by the Grace of God, King of France and of Navarre", the idea of a formal-sounding style for the President seems reasonable. Obviously it sounds silly to modern ears but it was reasonable-ish back then.

GlyphGryph posted:

I mean, my proposal still seems by popular consensus to be a terrible idea, but I'm not really seeing the legislative benefits that are supposed to occur by increasing the size of the house to 1,6000+ members or why it's any better. I'm not even sure how the supposed benefits of more accountable/more representative would even end up being a likely outcome.

The reason to increase the size of the House is to reduce the number of constituents per Congressman. This would in theory make it (a) easier to run for Congress, (b) reduce the diversity of a given Congressional District and (c) make Congressmen more responsive to constituents' local concerns.

You're combining the smaller, more focused electorate of a local/state leg election with the voter turnout of a federal race. It's easier to run because the district is smaller so there are fewer doors to knock/mailboxes to stuff/etc.

Right now, my Congressional District runs from cities through major suburbs through bedroom communities all the way to precincts where the cows outnumber the people. That's gonna pull a Congressman in a multitude of directions no matter how you slice it.

JT Jag posted:

If you increased the number of Congressmen in the House so that they would each represent a smaller number of people, I would be okay with the House replacing the Senate entirely, but only if all redistricting nationwide was done by a neutral third-party.

Does decreasing the size of districts make gerrymandering easier or harder?

GreyPowerVan posted:

Right, I've known that, but with people more educated today (at least in most areas :eng99:) why is it still this way?

It's really really hard to change the constitution, and you'd have to get it through a whole pile of interests (political parties, states) who wouldn't really see any benefit to them (and in the case of states, technically they lose power) and wouldn't want to push a major Constitutional change without clear knowledge of the gains. And you need 3/4 or 2/3 or something, so if one party saw a clear advantage they'd never get the other party to go along with it.

Petr posted:

I don't think a single person who has responded to GlyphGryph read his idea correctly.

Hint: It doesn't involve either paying everyone in America $40k or sending random people to Congress.

I understood it fine, it's still dumb. Those random folks picked by lotto would probably end up voting party-line no matter how much research you made them do. The stuff that folks like Rick Scott do that we think is OPENLY EVIL are the things his rabid fans praise him for. Juries only work because folks don't come into it with major preconceptions. Or where they do, those preconceptions generally at least aren't a core belief or identity (we screen KKKers out of jury pools with black defendants).

zoux posted:

Yeah I misread your opinion.

There are 14 states that use these commissions, so I guess it won't be a complete sea change.

It depends. If it's a big state, partisan vs. nonpartisan redistricting can mean several Congressmen in either direction. For instance, VA is a purple 50-50 state but it's 8R-3D in Congress and 67R-33D in its State Legislature because Republicans control redistricting (legislative elections in odd years don't help). A Democratic redistricting of the state could easily make it 6R-5D or even 5R-6D. That's a gain of 2-3 seats in Congress and I can only imagine a fair few seats in the legislature with Dem redistricting vs. Republican redistricting. Even if most of the states in question are smaller than VA (and one of them is California, lol) and bi-partisan redistricting splits differences down the middle, that's still more than a handful of House seats riding on the outcome of this case.

tsa
Feb 3, 2014

Petr posted:

I don't think a single person who has responded to GlyphGryph read his idea correctly.

Hint: It doesn't involve either paying everyone in America $40k or sending random people to Congress.

You'd need samples of at least 500 per state, so you are looking at 1-2 billion minimum. It's a dumb idea regardless.

tsa
Feb 3, 2014

Alter Ego posted:

I really don't get what Nate Silver's problem is. That fat gently caress Dean Chambers didn't manage to set him off, but a guy using slightly different methodology makes him go full-on Nerd Hulk?

He was so bloodless and dispassionate when analyzing the last three elections, even in the face of that moron and his "Unskewed Polls", but he's getting his feathers all up because Sam Wang said critical things about him in a blog post a long time ago. It's like if Nixon became a pollster instead of a politician.

Wang's model is poo poo though, Silver's not wrong.

Joementum
May 23, 2004

jesus christ

Thomas writes a majority opinion that districts are unconstitutional as there's no mention of them in the document and we get proportional representation in 2016 :getin:

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Joementum posted:

Thomas writes a majority opinion that districts are unconstitutional as there's no mention of them in the document and we get proportional representation in 2016 :getin:

Something that was also technically legal until the 91st Congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2c

Eggplant Squire
Aug 14, 2003


We might as well be reading chicken bones instead of nine people trying to determine what about eighty dudes really wanted over two hundred years ago and why we have to follow that now.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Joementum
May 23, 2004

jesus christ
Bonus quote of the day, "While good, affordable health care might still be a fanged threat to freedom on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world." ~ Barack Obama

  • Locked thread