|
Yashichi posted:I'm sure you thought this was clever but it doesn't mean anything. The issue people in this thread seem to have with districts is that they don't accurately represent the preferences of the population. There are definitely issues with fulfilling this goal accurately and consistently. The problem is that these objectives aren't shared by everyone. If you could magically convince everyone to agree on their priorities it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find a workable solution. Yes, that was exactly what I said. The problem is not that it's particularly hard to fulfill the objectives - it's well within the capabilities of people with pencil and paper. All making it an algorithm does it make it *seem* neutral - people who don't draw fair districts by hand are just going to choose algorithms that don't produce fair districts (and this is in fact his it works in practice - gerrymandering is computer aided these days.)
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
tsa posted:Even if they reverse CU it will do pretty much nothing to stop 'money in politics' because the first amendment exists and it would take a radically different reading of it to allow for the sort of restrictions of political speech that lefties are imagining. Even countries without the hurdle of the first and have a lot of latitude in restricting political speech have found themselves unable to impact the problem in a meaningful way for that matter because without completely draconian restrictions you aren't going to stop money from finding it's way in. Would it really? The first amendment would prevent any regulations preventing the warping effect of money on politics? What kind of regulations on contributions that could work would be considered 'draconian', out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Your "we can't have a perfect system ergo all systems are imperfect" is doing a lot of work here, specifically smearing together that there are more and less imperfect ways to do it. There are no compelling arguments for why gerrymandering so a minority can get a majority of the seats. There are many ways you can consider "accurately representing" the population and there's ones that are a lot more solid than others. I think the argument is that there's no perfect way to do it in a truly neutral/ideal fashion (both because there are legit disagreements about how to best represent people and because the people picking the algorithm will themselves have partisan purpose) so it's better to have partisanship out in the open than enshrine it secretly in the guise of false neutrality. I'm not so sure that even a very imperfect algorithm wouldn't be far better then we have now... but the argument is not without merit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think the argument is that there's no perfect way to do it in a truly neutral/ideal fashion (both because there are legit disagreements about how to best represent people and because the people picking the algorithm will themselves have partisan purpose) so it's better to have partisanship out in the open than enshrine it secretly in the guise of false neutrality. I can't see any merit in that argument at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
My objection is to the idea of an objective answer to the representation problem (majoritarian representation is itself an ideologically laden position). As far as who draws the lines, yes, I agree that an independent entity would be better- however, the underlying and unavoidable bias of the method will remain a problem. "Improvement" remains a questionable premise when not interrogated. The algorithm approach works by handwaving the entire process that goes into deciding what the algorithm should achieve. Again, computer systems don't change this much-we've always had the ability to go to a formulaic representation approach. There's a reason we don't.archangelwar posted:Believing that there is no perfectly neutral legal philosophy also means you should never strive to improve democracy? How in the gently caress did this sound remotely reasonable in your head? The idea of what representation should look like, beyond using "democracy" as a moral freight term to paper over the complications involved, is the representation problem. I'm fine with seeking ways to improve things. I don't think a uniform and innately value-laden approach is the correct one. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Ten days ago, VS was arguing that jurisprudence was inherently political, and it was therefore acceptable for SC justices to have a nakedly partisan agenda because true neutrality can't exist and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Today, DV is saying that the representation problem is inherently political and that we should abandon attempts to dress the process up as "neutral." VS thinks that's absurd. Well, there are at least two problems with this. The first is that there is no inconsistency. In both cases the assumption is that people will always have political bias, be they a judge or the person drawing a district, but it's possible to lessen the effect of that bias in districting by putting the people at a remove, whereas there's no way to have an algorithm decide court cases. Besides which, the power of any individual judge is limited and they are subject to appeal. The other problem is representation is the foundational principle of all of our other systems of government including the judicial branch. If you're unhappy with a judge you can either vote them out directly or vote out the person who appointed them. If you are unhappy with being denied accurate representation due to gerrymandering you can't vote your way out of that because, surprise, your vote has been engineered to be meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My objection is to the idea of an objective answer to the representation problem (majoritarian representation is itself an ideologically laden position). As far as who draws the lines, yes, I agree that an independent entity would be better- however, the underlying and unavoidable bias of the method will remain a problem. "Improvement" remains a questionable premise when not interrogated. The algorithm approach works by handwaving the entire process that goes into deciding what the algorithm should achieve. Again, computer systems don't change this much-we've always had the ability to go to a formulaic representation approach. There's a reason we don't. If you agree that it would be better, why do you immediately retreat to the position that we can never change anything? The fact that all solutions are flawed does not mean we should prefer the status quo. Why not work to minimize known biases? This is a very concrete problem and we have seen specific suggestions to address particular issues. It's also a bit much to claim that the sole reason districts aren't drawn in a formulaic way is the inherent bias of the process compared to current practice. Discendo Vox posted:The idea of what representation should look like, beyond using "democracy" as a moral freight term to paper over the complications involved, is the representation problem. I'm fine with seeking ways to improve things. I don't think a uniform and innately value-laden approach is the correct one. The concept of "inherently value-laden" is doing work in a bunch of illegitimate ways here. For one thing, it doesn't make sense to reject ideas for being "inherently value-laden", since favoring democracy over some other system is a value. I'm also not sure why you object to a uniform approach to the governance of a single country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:If you agree that it would be better, why do you immediately retreat to the position that we can never change anything? The fact that all solutions are flawed does not mean we should prefer the status quo. Why not work to minimize known biases? This is a very concrete problem and we have seen specific suggestions to address particular issues. It's also a bit much to claim that the sole reason districts aren't drawn in a formulaic way is the inherent bias of the process compared to current practice. I don't say that we can never do anything. I disagree with quantitative or other supposedly "objective" districting schema. I also don't claim that the sole reason districts aren't drawn according to formula is the inherent bias of pseudo-objective approaches. Yashichi posted:The concept of "inherently value-laden" is doing work in a bunch of illegitimate ways here. For one thing, it doesn't make sense to reject ideas for being "inherently value-laden", since favoring democracy over some other system is a value. I'm also not sure why you object to a uniform approach to the governance of a single country. "democracy" isn't sufficiently well-defined to mean anything for districting. It's also not an untrammelled good. Though our elections are democratic(and the word "democratic contains multitudes there), they're part of a larger system of republican checks and balances- power over the districting process (aside from those barred constitutionally) has historically been one of those. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't say that we can never do anything. I disagree with quantitative or other supposedly "objective" districting schema. Discendo Vox posted:I also don't claim that the sole reason districts aren't drawn according to formula is the inherent bias of pseudo-objective approaches. Discendo Vox posted:we've always had the ability to go to a formulaic representation approach. There's a reason we don't. Discendo Vox posted:"democracy" isn't sufficiently well-defined to mean anything for districting. It's also not an untrammelled good. Though our elections are democratic(and the word "democratic contains multitudes there), they're part of a larger system of republican checks and balances- power over the districting process (aside from those barred constitutionally) has historically been one of those. Let me phrase this differently. Having elections for representatives at all is already a value-laden choice. Every institution of government is based on the values of the people who founded it and operated it. I'm not appealing to some squishy "democracy", I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make sense to reject changes just because they aren't value-neutral. Nothing you state here supports the idea that we should prefer the current districting process to alternatives on the grounds that the change would be "inherently value-laden".
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Ten days ago, VS was arguing that jurisprudence was inherently political, and it was therefore acceptable for SC justices to have a nakedly partisan agenda because true neutrality can't exist and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. No I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that justices have different philosophies and those least to different rulings while still being internally consistent. The problem is you seem to think that anytime a justice agrees with you they're being "neutral" and anytime they disagree with you they're being "nakedly political". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:Let me phrase this differently. Having elections for representatives at all is already a value-laden choice. Every institution of government is based on the values of the people who founded it and operated it. I'm not appealing to some squishy "democracy", I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make sense to reject changes just because they aren't value-neutral. Nothing you state here supports the idea that we should prefer the current districting process to alternatives on the grounds that the change would be "inherently value-laden". Again, I'm not disagreeing with any and all changes to the districting process. I'm disagreeing with ones that use a single pseudo-objective quantitative method. I've said this three times now. That should be sufficient. Try Jarmak's restatement, if that would help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ones that use a single pseudo-objective quantitative method. I've said this three times now. This doesn't mean anything! It doesn't matter how many times you say it! I understand your point perfectly well, but you don't seem to want to support it with anything. You also aren't any help in trying to pin down these nonsensical classifiers you've created, so I'm going to let this drop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
As a lurker here I feel like I'm missing something, so sorry if the answer is really obvious: So what exactly is wrong about an algorithmic process to design districts? The example I'm familiar with is one that subdivides states recursively in half so that each subdivision has an equal number of people. My gut instinct would be that it would avoid a lot of manipulation of district demographics because almost no one is willing to move for political reasons(c.f. New Hampshire libertarians).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Can anyone link me to the full text of the court filing for the Maurice Walker v. City of Calhoun case in this article? Alternatively, if you know or feel like doing the work -- are they reasoning that the equal protection clause should be extended to "the poor" or is there some other reason why the 14th amendment would bar holding people too poor to afford bail in jail?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Trillary Flinton posted:As a lurker here I feel like I'm missing something, so sorry if the answer is really obvious: Because while the algorithm will apply its rules in an unbiased way, the rules themselves may be biased depending on who wrote them. An algorithm would be fine once everybody agrees what the ground rules are. Representation strictly by geography is not the only way to do it. You can assign representation based on ideology, or culture, or urban/suburban/rural (similar problems/concerns) or maybe even topography (like putting a river transportation system in one district to have one person in charge of it), or many other ways. People can disagree on what criteria should be used for determining representation. Once the interested parties agree on that, the matter of actually drawing the districts is trivial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Because while the algorithm will apply its rules in an unbiased way, the rules themselves may be biased depending on who wrote them. An algorithm would be fine once everybody agrees what the ground rules are. That's why I gave an example that partitioned districts by population, I wish I could find a link to it though because it passed the test of not making Florida a gerymandered shithole which seems like a pretty good way to define what a "good" algorithm is. edit: I mean, "well if the algorithm is bad then the result is bad" seems pretty self-evident, and I mean, the current system is totally hosed as it is. Trillary Flinton fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Can anyone link me to the full text of the court filing for the Maurice Walker v. City of Calhoun case in this article? here's the main docs here's the DOJ filing It looks like the answer, after a very quick skim, is yes. That's not an area I know much about, though, so I don't know that it's necessarily that much of a new step. Trillary Flinton posted:That's why I gave an example that partitioned districts by population, I wish I could find a link to it though because it passed the test of not making Florida a gerymandered shithole which seems like a pretty good way to define what a "good" algorithm is. Is the link, at root, by someone who was promoting the particular rule? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Trillary Flinton posted:That's why I gave an example that partitioned districts by population, I wish I could find a link to it though because it passed the test of not making Florida a gerymandered shithole which seems like a pretty good way to define what a "good" algorithm is. The point is that 10 different people will give 10 different definitions of what "good" is. There is no inherent merit in a district being geographically compact, other than it looking pretty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is the link, at root, by someone who was promoting the particular rule? Sorry, I don't understand the question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Trillary Flinton posted:That's why I gave an example that partitioned districts by population, I wish I could find a link to it though because it passed the test of not making Florida a gerymandered shithole which seems like a pretty good way to define what a "good" algorithm is. Districts are already partitioned by population, that's one of the rules of creating them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The point is that 10 different people will give 10 different definitions of what "good" is. There is no inherent merit in a district being geographically compact, other than it looking pretty. For the sake of argument, can you provide a better description of "good" that doesn't make it really easy to gerrymander? But on a more general level, are you saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with it, just that it's not really easy to come up with a specific algorithm? Because if so then yeah I agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
An unbiased algorithmic approach (and one is 100% possible and simple to create) will end up chopping up cities haphazardly. Thus is much better than the way we currently chop up cities to benefit Republicans (or specific incumbents, etc.) This sort of haphazard chopping defeats much of the point of electoral districting in the first place - you might as well go to a proportional system at that point since the district won't represent any common concerns but just a random area of unconnected people. But moving to a proportional system is basically unthinkable because people hate change. But the people most committed to reform don't want to support any nonproportional system. So nothing gets done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Districts are already partitioned by population, that's one of the rules of creating them. Yeah, but it seemed like Deteriorata was trying to argue otherwise. I may have misunderstood though. Finally found it, this is the specific algorithm that I was talking about. It seems like its pretty effective to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, I'm not disagreeing with any and all changes to the districting process. I'm disagreeing with ones that use a single pseudo-objective quantitative method. I've said this three times now. That should be sufficient. Try Jarmak's restatement, if that would help. this must be the only time someone has referenced a jarmak post favorably the cato institutes amicus in that case is pretty cool quote:A. The English Authorities from Before the Magna Carta to the Revolution Confirm the Right to Bail EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Proportional representation also brings up the question of actually recognizing parties in the states -- am I right in my thinking that the union doesn't actually formally recognize parties as an entity? Phrased differently: to actually vote for proportional representation, you'd actually have to have a party on a ticket as opposed to a person, right? We don't actually vote for parties in the states?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:here's the main docs My understanding (secondhand from my conlaw professor anyways) is that it would be an almost unthinkably massive change if it became precedent. Thank you, in any case!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Trillary Flinton posted:Yeah, but it seemed like Deteriorata was trying to argue otherwise. I may have misunderstood though. Right, I remember this one. Compactness is not always the primary goal of districting. "Communities of interest", to use the article's language, are in fact a valid goal- or at least are one under some theories. I especially appreciate the author acknowledging that we'd have to remove the VRA to enact "programmatic" districting, but that it would be better "in the name of representative democracy". More generally, it's part of the forum-favorite category, "STEM major solves centuries-old social problem in minutes with programming, declares objections and alternatives unimportant". Tuxedo Catfish posted:My understanding (secondhand from my conlaw professor anyways) is that it would be an almost unthinkably massive change if it became precedent. I guess the next step is to follow the cases DOJ cites and see if they're also on 14th grounds. edit: skimming Griffin, it seems like an extension, but not a particularly radical one. I'd be curious to see what has happened regarding indigent defendants and equivalent fees at the federal level. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:An unbiased algorithmic approach (and one is 100% possible and simple to create) will end up chopping up cities haphazardly. Thus is much better than the way we currently chop up cities to benefit Republicans (or specific incumbents, etc.) This sort of haphazard chopping defeats much of the point of electoral districting in the first place - you might as well go to a proportional system at that point since the district won't represent any common concerns but just a random area of unconnected people. edit: Assuming a modern society that can easily hold state/nation wide elections. twodot fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I especially appreciate the author acknowledging that we'd have to remove the VRA to enact "programmatic" districting, but that it would be better "in the name of representative democracy". The part of the VRA that gerrymanders minorities into 80%+ Democratic districts is kind of bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think this is what everyone should be posting. The specific point of districting is to create undemocratic outcomes. If all parties agree that districting is good, complaining that districting creates outcomes that differ from proportional representation is an absurd complaint. This is dumb and wrong. Districts aren't designed to create undemocratic outcomes. Gerrymandered districts are. Nobody looks at this and says "yeah this is good" except for the people who benefit from it  We have a solution to this and it isn't hard. Districts should be equal in population and should be compact. Everyone ignores the compact part and for whatever reason courts don't enforce it. Maybe with an actual liberal Supreme Court we might see some changes on this issue but the problem lies solely on the judiciary. 30 TO 50 FERAL HOG fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:This is dumb and wrong. Please note that the people who benefited from this were the residents of the district. Specifically, this district was formed so the first Hispanic Representative in Chicago could be elected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Isn't that district designed so that a Hispanic American would get elected to congress? There are several districts designed to be majority minority because that's the only way anyone was gonna vote for a minority back in the 60s (and now too, tbh)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Please note that the people who benefited from this were the residents of the district. Who gives a poo poo. It doesn't matter if this garbage benefits a district composed entirely of clones of RBG electing another RBG to the house. If it is not roughly equal in population and compact it should be invalidated. 30 TO 50 FERAL HOG fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Who gives a poo poo. The inhabitants of that district care, and approve of its boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The inhabitants of that district care, and approve of its boundaries. White southerners also approved of lynchings. That doesn't make them right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:White southerners also approved of lynchings. That doesn't make them right. Yeah, Hispanics wanting a Hispanic representative is totally equivalent to lynchings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:This is dumb and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean I agree this district was created to effect undemocratic outcomes, that's my point. What's a reason to have districting other than to skew results from what a proportional election would bring about? You're voting for someone geographically close to where you live and in theory they will be better suited to represent you. It also simplifies the voting process as otherwise you'd have 1000 people on every ballot as you would be voting for every rep for your entire state. You'd have people changing their names to Aaron Aardvark so they would be at the top of the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:We have a solution to this and it isn't hard. Districts should be equal in population and should be compact. Everyone ignores the compact part and for whatever reason courts don't enforce it. Maybe with an actual liberal Supreme Court we might see some changes on this issue but the problem lies solely on the judiciary. Compact districts don’t solve anything. Democrats are more geographically concentrated than Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
BiohazrD posted:You're voting for someone geographically close to where you live and in theory they will be better suited to represent you. It also simplifies the voting process as otherwise you'd have 1000 people on every ballot as you would be voting for every rep for your entire state. You'd have people changing their names to Aaron Aardvark so they would be at the top of the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:10
|
|