|
twodot posted:It's been used at least once, and the judge said the number of representatives a state has is a political question, and ruling on it would be real messy. It's a structural problem with the Constitution and government. If the SC can directly rule on the number of representatives, a sufficiently loaded court can hand the country to the party in power.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Changing the rules close to an election? If I had a time machine that could send one hand grenade to any point at any time in the last 20 years, I think that would be a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
I wish instead of population we'd base the decennial congressional apportionment on the average number of persons who cast ballots in the last decade's federal elections. Give states a positive reason to get out the vote. Right now the majority benefits by suppressing as many minority votes as possible. Would we even have needed to wait until we could get an amendment for women's suffrage when letting women vote would instantly double your state's clout in the House and the Electoral College? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I wish instead of population we'd base the decennial congressional apportionment on the average number of persons who cast ballots in the last decade's federal elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I wish instead of population we'd base the decennial congressional apportionment on the average number of persons who cast ballots in the last decade's federal elections. Giving an incentive to stuff the ballot box isn't an inherently good thing, either. All it would be is a change, not a correction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I wish instead of population we'd base the decennial congressional apportionment on the average number of persons who cast ballots in the last decade's federal elections. But the decisions that impact voter turnout (voter ID laws, early voting, etc) are made by state legislators who are looking to protect their own seats. I could see a scenario where a low-population state like Alaska says "Screw congress, we only get one seat anyway, the important thing is protecting the state Republican party! As long as we get to control our own little fiefdom the national GOP can wither and die for all we care!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Giving an incentive to stuff the ballot box isn't an inherently good thing, either. All it would be is a change, not a correction. Ehhh, there's a limit to how much you can plausibly stuff ballot boxes before you start asking for an investigation. In the current system, every black voter you keep away from the polls is like netting an extra vote for your side. It's at least a tougher bar to get that net vote if you also have to invent a ballot. No one's going to believe you if exit polls show almost no black voters yet your state claims votes equal to the full voting age population were cast. Corrupt Politician posted:But the decisions that impact voter turnout (voter ID laws, early voting, etc) are made by state legislators who are looking to protect their own seats. I could see a scenario where a low-population state like Alaska says "Screw congress, we only get one seat anyway, the important thing is protecting the state Republican party! As long as we get to control our own little fiefdom the national GOP can wither and die for all we care!" So basically the same as now except that to suppress the vote, a party has to give up the House and the Presidency forever? The Senate filibuster is only going to hold off universal health care for so long, and it's only a matter of time before they lose the Supreme Court too. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I wish instead of population we'd base the decennial congressional apportionment on the average number of persons who cast ballots in the last decade's federal elections. One variation I've heard of this idea is to weight the votes in Congress by the number of people who voted for each member. So the apportionment is the same, but their voting power varies. Running the numbers for Pennsylvania 2012, the thirteen winning Republicans received 2,310,500 votes in their districts, and the five Democrats got 1,139,181. So in this scenario the Democrats would get a slight boost. But it doesn't stop gerrymandering: for example, in Pennsylvania, more people voted for Democrats overall (2,793,538) than for Republicans (2,710,070), or others (52,722), and yet the Republicans would still command more power. Also, it's harder for people in Congress to calculate their way to a majority. There are a few different ways to imagine the system working - it's certainly in the same sphere as proportional representation, or even delegative democracy. One question is to what extent it would be possible to implement such a scheme by rules of the House, without falling foul of the Constitution. In the Senate, it would seem that guaranteed equal representation of states makes it impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
AlexG posted:One variation I've heard of this idea is to weight the votes in Congress by the number of people who voted for each member. So the apportionment is the same, but their voting power varies. Running the numbers for Pennsylvania 2012, the thirteen winning Republicans received 2,310,500 votes in their districts, and the five Democrats got 1,139,181. So in this scenario the Democrats would get a slight boost. But it doesn't stop gerrymandering: for example, in Pennsylvania, more people voted for Democrats overall (2,793,538) than for Republicans (2,710,070), or others (52,722), and yet the Republicans would still command more power. Also, it's harder for people in Congress to calculate their way to a majority. I'm pretty sure one man one vote would blow that idea out of the water. Even if it could be said that their votes reflect equal representation of SUPPORT, the flip side implies that those who did not vote or voted for another candidate had NO effective representation even when a candidate may be said to align with their views (e.g. a Democrat will be disadvantaged in bringing home pork for Republican CEOs who otherwise disagree with their representative).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's a structural problem with the Constitution and government. If the SC can directly rule on the number of representatives, a sufficiently loaded court can hand the country to the party in power. RIGHT?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
AlexG posted:One variation I've heard of this idea is to weight the votes in Congress by the number of people who voted for each member. So the apportionment is the same, but their voting power varies. Running the numbers for Pennsylvania 2012, the thirteen winning Republicans received 2,310,500 votes in their districts, and the five Democrats got 1,139,181. So in this scenario the Democrats would get a slight boost. But it doesn't stop gerrymandering: for example, in Pennsylvania, more people voted for Democrats overall (2,793,538) than for Republicans (2,710,070), or others (52,722), and yet the Republicans would still command more power. Also, it's harder for people in Congress to calculate their way to a majority. I've generally heard this proposal paired with electing everyone who gets over a certain percentage of the vote (10%, say). So in your example above, the PA delegation would get a raft of Democrats and Republicans, and the Dems would collectively have 2,793,538 votes while the Republicans would have 2,710,070 votes. This would effectively eliminate gerrymandering as a concept for the House. It would also mean every single vote in every single district would matter pretty much evenly as far as the party is concerned; running up your totals hugely in stronghold states would be just as effective as trying to snatch a few points in battleground states. I mean, it's not going to happen in our lifetimes, but it's a fun thought experiment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
That seems like a really weird and complicated way to switch the House over to proportional representation. Actually, is there any constitutional reason a State couldn't select its Representatives proportionally anyway? I know there were a series of cases that in the 60s that required districts to be equal in population because some states were giving a major city one congressman, and a county with 5 people and some hogs their own congressman, but is there anything stopping a state from abandoning districts altogether and electing congressmen at large with ratios equal to the ratios of votes each party received?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Thank the various gods...quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday barred Texas from enforcing an abortion regulation that left only seven clinics open in the state. gently caress you Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Of course it's those three.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Thank the various gods... This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg dissented on a case where a jury acquitted, but the judge used discretion and sentenced the defendants anyway. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/the-jury-acquits-the-judge-still-sentences-can-that-be/
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health. It's good news, but a lot of damage has already been done (taken from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-blocks-abortion-limits-in-texas/#more-219391): quote:Those two provisions, together, had reduced the number of clinics still operating in the state to seven, with an eighth soon to open. At one time recently, Texas had forty-one clinics. The Supreme Court’s action Tuesday will allow the reopening of thirteen closed clinics on Wednesday, lawyers for the clinics said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
So what happens with this case after this? I assume it gets appealed to the full court for review?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Of course it's those three. Clarence Thomas. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health. I didn't realize taking two sets of pills at home was an invasive medical procedure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Thank the various gods... I'm curious if Roberts was part of the 6 because it's such a blatant attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade that he's just not going to put up with legislatures trying to undermine the power of the SCOTUS, or if he (and Kennedy) simply decided that allowing it to go in to effect would mean that even if it's overturned the damage will be irreversible. Allaniis posted:Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg dissented on a case where a jury acquitted, but the judge used discretion and sentenced the defendants anyway. How the hell could the SCOTUS not take up a case where a judge sentenced defendants using a charge a jury had just acquitted them of? I'd love to know why Sotomayor(or Kagan) was one of the 6 that didn't want to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That seems like a really weird and complicated way to switch the House over to proportional representation. There was a federal law that said you couldn't elect multiple representatives at large. It's not (inherently) constitutional but I believe it's within Congress's powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Can a legal eagle explain to me how this happened? I thought "not guilty" meant it was over?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Can a legal eagle explain to me how this happened? I thought "not guilty" meant it was over?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
duz posted:I didn't realize taking two sets of pills at home was an invasive medical procedure. Well little lady, you might get that pretty little head confused by all the words on the bottle and not take them at the right time. We wouldn't want that so we'll make sure you come and have the doctor supervise you. You cant jist pop these like they're bonbons or Viagra. ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health. And the standrards described by all competent medical organizations as unnecessary, burdensome, and detrimental to access are the most overlooked yet most crucial medical standards of all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health. Do pray tell which medical standards relevant to abortion were involved in the regulations at issue, and how they were relevant to the procedure. Good on you for parroting the line that requiring clinics to literally rebuild themselves (most of the regulations involved were structural) or relocate (the other major requirement was being within 30 miles of a hospital, to which the doctor had to have admitting privileges) is a "set medical standard", though! The only thing I think you could argue is the admitting privileges requirement, which itself is bullshit. It's like you literally don't even know what the issues here were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Don't forget that admitting privileges appears to be entirely up to the hospitals as well. Oh all the hospitals within 300 miles are Catholic institutions? Looks like you're poo poo out of luck buddy and your clinic has to close now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Don't forget that admitting privileges appears to be entirely up to the hospitals as well. Oh all the hospitals within 300 miles are Catholic institutions? Looks like you're poo poo out of luck buddy and your clinic has to close now. Or if you previously had privileges at a hospital that then revoked them due to angry people threatening to drag the hospital's name through the mud solely because you had privileges there. Which, of course, is a totally hypothetical situation, just like your idea that a Catholic hospital would deny privileges on the basis of the doctor performing abortions. Totally implausible hypothetical situations that never happened, no way no how. They wouldn't just never process an application for privileges either! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There was a federal law that said you couldn't elect multiple representatives at large. It's not (inherently) constitutional but I believe it's within Congress's powers. PR for congressional seats hasn't been tested in court, though I believe the supreme court has found plurality-at-large voting in general unconstitutional because of its effect on minorities. That doesn't stop it from being the most popular voting system for local elections in the country though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:If I remember right this law was intended to prevent plurality-at-large voting (which would give minorities zero representation), but somewhat unfortunately got worded as "any voting system that elects multiple winners". It can't be entirely clear-cut, since from what the web tells me, Maine and Nebraska both use a variation of proportional representation for the Electoral College. If you can use it in some states for picking the president without being sued out the wazoo, it is clearly within the scope of the law. The problem with using it nationwide is probably more down to party-interest in holding on to bastions (f.inst. Kansas has been pretty solidly Democrat in terms of congressmen for yonks, but they still have maybe 30-40% Republican voters), and state-interest in having a unified set of representatives in Congress rather than a bit of each that may not get much done for the state. Also, it would require Congress to agree to make all the states do it, and that's not happening anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:It can't be entirely clear-cut, since from what the web tells me, Maine and Nebraska both use a variation of proportional representation for the Electoral College. If you can use it in some states for picking the president without being sued out the wazoo, it is clearly within the scope of the law. The problem with using it nationwide is probably more down to party-interest in holding on to bastions (f.inst. Kansas has been pretty solidly Democrat in terms of congressmen for yonks, but they still have maybe 30-40% Republican voters), and state-interest in having a unified set of representatives in Congress rather than a bit of each that may not get much done for the state. Also, it would require Congress to agree to make all the states do it, and that's not happening anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Maine and Nebraska do not have "PR" for the electoral college, they simply use single member districts for electors instead of having a state-wide winner-take-all election for them. Hence "variation of". It's not a true PR system, and I don't think the vote for electors has ever split in any of the states. It is also vulnerable to gerrymandering of a different sort of course, but the point it *could* result in a split vote, so whatever federal law people were talking about that disallowed multiple winners doesn't extend to the electoral college at least. If you can pick a president without winner-takes-all on a state level, surely there are no structural obstacles for using PR-like systems elesewhere (by baby steps if need be), beyond political will to say "let's do this". It takes a simple law, not adding amendments to the US Constitution, is my point. I fully grasp that getting that political will to manifest, and explaining to voters why they should care and call for it, is an extremely tall order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Hence "variation of". It's not a true PR system, and I don't think the vote for electors has ever split in any of the states. It is also vulnerable to gerrymandering of a different sort of course, but the point it *could* result in a split vote, so whatever federal law people were talking about that disallowed multiple winners doesn't extend to the electoral college at least. If you can pick a president without winner-takes-all on a state level, surely there are no structural obstacles for using PR-like systems elesewhere (by baby steps if need be), beyond political will to say "let's do this". It takes a simple law, not adding amendments to the US Constitution, is my point. I fully grasp that getting that political will to manifest, and explaining to voters why they should care and call for it, is an extremely tall order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Don't forget that admitting privileges appears to be entirely up to the hospitals as well. Oh all the hospitals within 300 miles are Catholic institutions? Looks like you're poo poo out of luck buddy and your clinic has to close now. I'm not aware of anywhere where this is true. If there is a place where this is the case, I'd be interested in knowing, as that is a valid concern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
duz posted:I didn't realize taking two sets of pills at home was an invasive medical procedure. Oh...is that the only service these abortion clinics provide? Seems the scope of their practice is rather limited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:It's like you literally don't even know what the issues here were. Or I've actually read the briefs of both sides...I'm not an OBGYN so I don't feel qualified to say whether these are reasonable or not, however both sides raise valid points. It's fairly arrogant to assume anything that makes it to the Supreme Court barring a case like Dredd Scott is so cut and dry that there are no valid arguments on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Okay but here we have one side supported by every respectable medical organization, and the other side consisting of regulations invented by religious cranks to keep vaginas firmly under male control. So it probz is one if those cases. But hey maybe you're right and the AMA could stand to learn a thing or two about uteruses from the author of the bill as she explains how a rape kit scoops all the semen out of you so you don't get pregnant. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but here we have one side supported by every respectable medical organization, and the other side consisting of regulations invented by religious cranks to keep vaginas firmly under male control. So it probz is one if those cases. My state bar routinely signs on as amicus in various cases. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not. The fact an amicus brief was filed by this organization or that organization (and there were amicus briefs filed on both sides) does not necessarily mean that the entire membership of said organization agrees. as for the quote below, yes. that's asinine. However, if every bill sponsored by a politician who said something mind numbingly stupid was deemed invalid, we would be a nation of anarchy. I can see a valid reason to have physicians hold admitting privileges. Frequently physicians who lose admitting privileges open private clinics for various lesser procedures (laser hair removal and cosmetic surgery are common ones.) Requiring admitting privileges provides some oversight. And seeing as one of the chief goals of Roe v. Wade was to make sure people weren't forced to see back alley butchers with a folding table and a kitchen knife, I don't necessarily think that scrutiny of an abortion physician is "ZOMG WE HATE TEH WOMENZ." ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:as for the quote below, yes. that's asinine. However, if every bill sponsored by a politician who said something mind numbingly stupid was deemed invalid, we would be a nation of anarchy. However, when that politician says something stupid, and that stupid thing has to do with their bill, it is a good bet that the politician has no idea what they are talking about for the bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
But what about the legions of doctors and OB/GYN's who don't agree with every professional organization, VitalSigns? The Silent Medical Majority, if you will?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:57
|
|