|
Keeshhound posted:I may be misreading then; I thought the argument in question was that they were claiming it wasn't illegal for them to target members of political parties for disenfranchisement. Directly saying "hey, you're a Republican, you can't vote here" isn't allowed, but declaring that concealed carry cards aren't valid voter ID and college IDs are is legal, even if you're doing it because Republicans are far more likely to have the former and Dems are far more likely to have the latter.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
NC's big problem is that they asked for racial data then made their changes to disproportionately effect the minorities with that data. They would have had a much better chance at winning if they asked for info based on party affiliation or ideology. The first way shows they were basing their decisions on race. The second way would have required more effort to show that the changes were specifically to gently caress over a protected class instead of a non protected class of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Gerrymandering on the basis of political belief isn't barred. It probably should be, and it might one day be barred, but it currently isn't AFAIK. This is because gerrymandering doesn't actually stop you from exercising for your first amendment rights. you can still vote, you can still express political opinions, you can still join political parties, etc. That plus obvious intent for voting to be covered by other amendments, and that targeting on political beliefs is usually targeting based on race in actuality. Probably isn't a 14th amendment privacy theory that would remotely stand up; otherwise we'd conceivably be able to have EU-style Right to be Forgotten in the States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They would have had a much better chance at winning if they asked for info based on party affiliation or ideology. There may also be a burden to prove that race isn't a factor in determining someone's Party Affiliation Index, but frankly there's probably enough of a link between poorer urban areas and race that it wouldn't be necessary for the purposes of sufficiently blocking access to voting. fake edit: Hell, one of the big three (four now?) marketing data companies could probably guess your vote with a hilarious margin of certainty based on smartphone and web use. It just seems weird someone looked specifically for data on race and not a more direct "What's this person's vote?" heatmap built by a large marketing database firm. Had that been done, we may not have seen the respective recent federal circuit decision rule against blatant voter suppression in the redistricting. Its like someone was (a) an idiot or (b) intentionally inviting trouble. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What association is being blocked? Districts don't prevent you from joining a political party, they don't prevent you from voting for a specific party or person. If I openly refuse to allow permits for Southern Baptist churches, and only Southern Baptist churches, I’m not preventing you from joining a Southern Baptist convention or worshipping with them. I’m just making it really inconvenient. I think we all know that wouldn’t fly. EwokEntourage posted:It's pretty clear that voting is covered by amendments dealing specifically with voting and not with the first amendment, which is why cases like the NC case was decided on a 14th amendment equal protection basis The First’s implied freedom of association was used to strike down California’s open primary in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000). Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If I openly refuse to allow permits for Southern Baptist churches, and only Southern Baptist churches, I’m not preventing you from joining a Southern Baptist convention or worshipping with them. I’m just making it really inconvenient. That wasn't a right to vote issue, it was explicitly the opposite.. and it was a primary which makes it very very different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If I openly refuse to allow permits for Southern Baptist churches, and only Southern Baptist churches, I’m not preventing you from joining a Southern Baptist convention or worshipping with them. I’m just making it really inconvenient. Yeah, but what's happening is more a matter of discovering that Southern Baptists prefer overwhelmingly to register to vote on Saturdays, so that they have Sundays free to worship, and you change the registration center's operating hours to be closed on Saturdays and open on Sundays in the places with the strongest Southern Baptist populations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If I openly refuse to allow permits for Southern Baptist churches, and only Southern Baptist churches, I’m not preventing you from joining a Southern Baptist convention or worshipping with them. I’m just making it really inconvenient. That's a bad analogy, because religion is a constitutionally protected class and subject to different restrictions than political parties, which are not constitutionally protected groups (which is why you could maybe theoretically discriminate against dems if you could do so without also discriminating against protected groups) I haven't read that case so I will supplement Based on my Wikipedia reading of it, I think it supports what I'm saying. Gerrymandering doesn't mess with your ability to join a party or vote dem, it just dilutes the power of your vote. That's not a first amendment issue. And I think voting in a primary is much more an association issue then voting in the general, given the vastly different nature of the systems EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:That's a bad analogy, because religion is a constitutionally protected class and subject to different restrictions than political parties, which are not constitutionally protected groups (which is why you could maybe theoretically discriminate against dems if you could do so without also discriminating against protected groups) On the other hand, the government is not allowed to declare a group a religion/not a religion, so it might be as simple as finding a super political minority who got disenfranchised to claim that "democratic is their religion, and that they worship by voting and you might have a case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:On the other hand, the government is not allowed to declare a group a religion/not a religion, so it might be as simple as finding a super political minority who got disenfranchised to claim that "democratic is their religion, and that they worship by voting and you might have a case. I don't know If this is facetious or not, but you can't actually just declare whatever you want a religion
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:. I wonder if someone is already selling this to pollsters or campaigns. Id love to see how this compares with old school phone polling data.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
There is not an agreed upon structuring of districts that immunized the practice from political effect or ideology. Gerrymandering is unavoidable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There is not an agreed upon structuring of districts that immunized the practice from political effect or ideology. Gerrymandering is unavoidable. To borrow an oft-used phrase of this thread, political effect is doing some heavy lifting there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I don't know If this is facetious or not, but you can't actually just declare whatever you want a religion It was facetious in that you don't need to do that to get protections for your ideological identity, but you can absolutely declare whatever you want a religion. I can declare myself a worshiper of orange juice as a divine fluid, and as long as I don't harm or severely inconvenience anyone in the pursuit of my newfound faith, I will receive the exact same recognition and protections that a practicing catholic would. Namely, none, and if I could prove that I had been discriminated against for my beliefs, I could sue in the same circumstances the catholic could. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There is not an agreed upon structuring of districts that immunized the practice from political effect or ideology. Gerrymandering is unavoidable. Doesn't a 12th grader come out with a new, completely non-politicized, proportional districting computer algorithm every three years?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Doesn't a 12th grader come out with a new, completely non-politicized, proportional districting computer algorithm every three years? Yes, which should tell you something about their merit. Think of it this way: which should be used, and why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
The thing politicians don't like, because politicians are scumbags who like their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Doesn't a 12th grader come out with a new, completely non-politicized, proportional districting computer algorithm every three years?  If you drop the United States on the ground, the screen shatters. https://priceonomics.com/algorithm-the-unfairness-of-gerrymandering/
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, which should tell you something about their merit. Think of it this way: which should be used, and why? Non-district based proportional representation 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Non-district based proportional representation Currently banned under a federal law because of southern states making all their districts At-Large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:It was facetious in that you don't need to do that to get protections for your ideological identity, but you can absolutely declare whatever you want a religion. I can declare myself a worshiper of orange juice as a divine fluid, and as long as I don't harm or severely inconvenience anyone in the pursuit of my newfound faith, I will receive the exact same recognition and protections that a practicing catholic would. Namely, none, and if I could prove that I had been discriminated against for my beliefs, I could sue in the same circumstances the catholic could. This is incomprehensible. And no, you couldn't declare yourself a worshiper of oj and sue people for discrimination against you for violating these new beliefs. If you could, all those weed churches and poo poo would have done it already
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Currently banned under a federal law because of southern states making all their districts At-Large. Yeah, I know, but that wouldn't be a problem with proportional seating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Non-district based proportional representation Define "proportional". There's more to representation than race. Like, the representation problem is as old as government. It's innately political, right up there with the citizenship question. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There is not an agreed upon structuring of districts that immunized the practice from political effect or ideology. Gerrymandering is unavoidable. The whole idea that you are "represented" by someone who you voted against just because they come from your district is a complete farce. Sure your representative has the opposite views from you politically and doesn't even pretend to want your vote, but he bought a house on the other side of the district just before the election!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Define "proportional". There's more to representation than race. I meant proportional seating based on candidate lists, like Australian parliament. I didn't really bring it up as a viable-in-US-at-present solution, just a preferred pipe dream one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Currently banned under a federal law because of southern states making all their districts At-Large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I meant proportional seating based on candidate lists, like Australian parliament. I didn't really bring it up as a viable-in-US-at-present solution, just a preferred pipe dream one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yeah, I know, but that wouldn't be a problem with proportional seating. You wouldn't have to district anymore, but the states being permanent borders already create a natural gerrymandering situation. Like for example - Wyoming is ~540,000 people. Assuming half the population votes, you need 140,000 people to win a congressional seat. Now California has 40 million people. If half of them vote, that's 20 million. That means (on average) 380,000 people vote on a seat, or 190,000 to get a majority. Wyoming's votes are therefore still worth 30% more, even in a "pure" proportional system. It gets even worse when you try to get more people to vote. Getting another 1% of California residents to vote means 400,000 people. Getting another 1% of Wyoming residents means 5400 people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You wouldn't have to district anymore, but the states being permanent borders already create a natural gerrymandering situation. Though you could conceivably make the argument that the house of representatives should, constitutionally, be much larger and thus remove some of the small state effect. I don't think anyone's made a serious attempt at that though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Whether it's a proportional ranked voting method, list voting, or even one of the semi-proportional methods like single non-transferable vote doesn't really matter much for purposes of this discussion. Why's that, exactly? computer parts posted:Like for example - Wyoming is ~540,000 people. Assuming half the population votes, you need 140,000 people to win a congressional seat. Now California has 40 million people. If half of them vote, that's 20 million. That means (on average) 380,000 people vote on a seat, or 190,000 to get a majority. Wyoming's votes are therefore still worth 30% more, even in a "pure" proportional system. It's this bit only applicable to Wyoming though? I'm not disagreeing with you, per say, but it's kinda an edge case. e: Oh it's actually a problem in seven states. Didn't realize. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:This is incomprehensible. And no, you couldn't declare yourself a worshiper of oj and sue people for discrimination against you for violating these new beliefs. If you could, all those weed churches and poo poo would have done it already If you can prove that you were discriminated against for it, yes, you can. It needs to be the same sort of circumstances as a catholic would need to sue for it, so you'd pretty much need an affidavit signed by your boss saying that they fired you for your beliefs but you could absolutely sue in those circumstances. Look, approach it from the other angle; what makes a belief system not a religion for the purposes of the government? The government is explicitly prohibited from establishing a religion (or granting recognition to a religion over others) or from inhibiting it's free exercise, save in cases where exercising a religion violates criminal codes (no human sacrifice, etc.) If you declare yourself to be the sole follower of a weird-rear end religion, and you're not hurting anyone, your faith has exactly the same protections that the larger, more established ones do. No more, no less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:We are not constitutionally required to have districts. We could very easily have no gerrymandering by using proportional representation at the state level. Even if your rep is a shithead who stands against everything you believe in, they still serve the community far more being tied to a specific area rather than an at large seat. They may do a lovely job, but unless you live in one of the largest population centers it's still better than you would get. What you want is multi member districts with a single transferable vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Even if your rep is a shithead who stands against everything you believe in, they still serve the community far more being tied to a specific area rather than an at large seat. They may do a lovely job, but unless you live in one of the largest population centers it's still better than you would get. quote:What you want is multi member districts with a single transferable vote. If voters actually believe that a local candidate promising to serve "the community in their area" was who they wanted, they should get exactly that: by voting for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Look, approach it from the other angle; what makes a belief system not a religion for the purposes of the government? The government is explicitly prohibited from establishing a religion (or granting recognition to a religion over others) or from inhibiting it's free exercise, save in cases where exercising a religion violates criminal codes (no human sacrifice, etc.) If you declare yourself to be the sole follower of a weird-rear end religion, and you're not hurting anyone, your faith has exactly the same protections that the larger, more established ones do. No more, no less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Is this the NO MA'AM defense? There are a lot easier ways to get tax-exempt status.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There is not an agreed upon structuring of districts that immunized the practice from political effect or ideology. Gerrymandering is unavoidable. That's not true, mixed-member proportional represenation basically eliminates the practice of gerrymandering, since you no longer get any advatages from gerrymandering districts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:If you can prove that you were discriminated against for it, yes, you can. It needs to be the same sort of circumstances as a catholic would need to sue for it, so you'd pretty much need an affidavit signed by your boss saying that they fired you for your beliefs but you could absolutely sue in those circumstances. Are you talking about what morally should be, or what actually is given current laws and caselaw? I can't tell, and you didn't cite any sources. Like, there's too many obvious ways for idiots to try to turn this reasoning for personal gain for there not to be a court case or two. And I can totally see a judge scoffing at off-brand wicca splinters, rightly or wrongly. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
I am fairly sure that in actual practice, mainstream Christians get a lot more leeway in most courts on religious protections than, say, Santeria, which has had to go to the Supreme Court, or Mormons, who lost on the religion issue over polygyny despite it being actual doctrine. To say nothing of more fringe your New Age-y groups like Wicca.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
I need a simple, very strong reason why cutting the map into equal districts for the presidential general election is a bad idea, and I need another very good reason why forcing states to use convex-optimized district maps is a bad idea before I release any credence or recognition of merit to gerrymandered status quo with incredibly odd shapes that are clearly designed with the express intent of loving with the legitimacy of democratic process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I need a simple, very strong reason why cutting the map into equal districts for the presidential general election is a bad idea, and I need another very good reason why forcing states to use convex-optimized district maps is a bad idea before I release any credence or recognition of merit to gerrymandered status quo with incredibly odd shapes that are clearly designed with the express intent of loving with the legitimacy of democratic process. Define equal - size and shape? Population? If population, as long as it is contiguous and equal pop, how do you stop gerrymandering by political views? If size and shape, how is it fair?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:20
|
|