|
If you are talking about single transferable voting or cumulative voting and the like, they have been called semi-proportional in specialized literature, precisely because of the issue I mentioned. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Choosing%20Electoral%20Systems.pdf http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/electoral-reform-and-voting-systems
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Antti posted:How about you have a list of people, people vote for candidates on the list, the list is allocated seats based on their share and the seats are divided to the candidates who got the most votes on the list? So people get multiple seats?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So people get multiple seats? No real reason to limit someone to one seat, is there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:No real reason to limit someone to one seat, is there? Most people just have the one rear end. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Most people just have the one rear end. Ironically, the Republicans have multiple!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
i think some people having more votes in a congress could lead to some weird political dynamics, especially when those people help determine who it is that gets more votes. ie the congress decides that that guy who disagrees with <leader> on policy suddenly has his votes combined into the leaders seat next election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Ironically, the Republicans have multiple! This checks out: they're asshats and two-faced
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I guess the any you'd do it is to allow someone to have multiple seats. So if there were 4 seats and one guy gets 50%~ of the vote, he gets two of the seats. I don't know that this would be a good idea at all, and in fact rather doubt it, but it is feasible as a concept. We should just make it so every state only gets a few seats. That way every state is equal. We can start with 2 for the sake of simplicity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"What's being desired" is the problem in the first place. Yes, I know, but there should be a disclosure/transparency requirement around how those work just as a districting commission's rules should be public knowledge to provide for oversight. I'm sure the computer's output is also tweaked by hand after the fact much of the time, too, which is where select individuals could introduce their own bias, which is why you'd need oversight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:If you are talking about single transferable voting or cumulative voting and the like, they have been called semi-proportional in specialized literature, precisely because of the issue I mentioned. Cumulative and SNTV voting are reasonably "semi-proportional" by any definition, since in order to have a proportional outcome voters may need some information about where their relative strength lies. This is why Japanese political parties ask their supporters to vote for particular candidates depending on when the voter's birthday was. But proportional outcomes are at least possible, and it's clear how to move to better systems from them. But why use something so imprecise as a party when voters might legitimately exist between several positions and can express preferences between them? That's exactly what ranked voting in STV does. If voters in STV treat parties as one big slate (and don't intermix two parties together in their rankings), then STV behaves proportionally even by the narrow definition. It's only "semi" proportional when the voters themselves are!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Not a supreme court thing. But how serious are the new claims in the kesha case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Not a supreme court thing. But how serious are the new claims in the kesha case? The "the judge's husband is a partner at Proskauer, and Sony is Proskauer's client, bit?" If so, it depends. There's probably a sliding scale from "the judge's husband didn't even know Sony was a client" to "the judge's husband is in charge of the Sony relationship for Proskauer", with some intermediate positions like "the judge's husband was vaguely aware Sony was a client" and "the judge's husband has worked on some minimal Sony matters." I haven't seen any reports giving details on where on the scale this is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The "the judge's husband is a partner at Proskauer, and Sony is Proskauer's client, bit?" "Past long-standing chair of Proskauer’s Health Care Department, Ed Kornreich is a recognized authority on the legal, regulatory and business issues related to health care services." Gonna guess that this is going to be on the vague awareness side of things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Why do you even need regional representation in the House? The states have a significant amount of lawmaking power, so some regional interests are naturally decided on a regional level. And since each state has two Senators, regions already have a voice in federal lawmaking. Why do House seats need to represent regional interests as well, instead of representing a majority of all people in the USA, wherever they may live? Even the President is elected on a state-by-state basis! Would it really hurt to have one legislative body that actually represents the national majority?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
You want the House, a body with 435 voting members, to have each member voted on by the entire country? How many elections do you think people can pay attention to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:You want the House, a body with 435 voting members, to have each member voted on by the entire country? How many elections do you think people can pay attention to? It’s almost as though there are solutions to this that don’t involve four hundred and thirty‐five separate elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
I no longer have any idea whether someone's being facetious or not in this electoral system discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s almost as though there are solutions to this that don’t involve four hundred and thirty‐five separate elections. Yeah, maybe one election, and the winner of that election can be represented by a single person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, maybe one election, and the winner of that election can be represented by a single person. Ugh, you are deliberately overlooking the proportional representation part. Come on. (I don't actually care any more, Heil Hitler.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Antti posted:I no longer have any idea whether someone's being facetious or not in this electoral system discussion. It is a mystery. computer parts posted:Yeah, maybe one election, and the winner of that election can be represented by a single person. Let's just have the House be made up of the people that get the 10 largest portiosn of votes, and they each get exactly as many "seats" in the House as they received in the election. One election, ten winners, 130 million seats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
I'm honestly unclear on what problems decreasing regional representation is supposed to solve, other than "Republicans getting elected" and "funny district shapes."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm honestly unclear on what problems decreasing regional representation is supposed to solve, other than "Republicans getting elected" and "funny district shapes." It obviously solves the problem of supreme court related discussion in supreme court threads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm honestly unclear on what problems decreasing regional representation is supposed to solve, other than "Republicans getting elected" and "funny district shapes." The perversion of democracy is a good one
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
What is democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
What cases have already been presented at the Supreme Court and may be announced this fall? Or do they start from scratch every session?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Also you should not use the word gerrymander so much because it's a pejorative which begs the question and it's completely vague.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Coming back to the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Circuit today issued an opinion touching upon border searches. The concurrence summarized 4A jurisprudence regarding border searches, and exemplifies what I was saying about how border searches fall into their own category of analysis, completely inapplicable to searches of homes:link to opinion posted:“A search without a warrant is ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’” United States v. Boumelhem, 339 F.3d 414, 420 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). “The border search exception generally provides that routine searches of the persons and effects of [those who enter the country from another country] are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant.” Id.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also you should not use the word gerrymander so much because it's a pejorative which begs the question and it's completely vague. Antti posted:I no longer have any idea whether someone's being facetious or not in this electoral system discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Everyone agrees gerrymandering is bad. By definition it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm honestly unclear on what problems decreasing regional representation is supposed to solve, other than "Republicans getting elected" and "funny district shapes." "One man one vote" is a reasonable concept. It seems only logical to reevaluate the electoral system when votes are objectively unequal. Why are the only people who get to decide the fate of Congress those who happen to live in the very rare swing seat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:
In terms of individual votes, your vote matters about equally no matter where you live. Even if it came down to a situation where your side had +1 vote over the other side, your individual vote still only matters as much as everyone else who voted the same way (i.e., incredibly minuscule). "Swing Seats" are only valuable in that the probability of winning them is uncertain. In a case like 2016, supposedly safe seats are becoming swing seats, and vice versa. Does that mean the latter voters no longer matter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
435 is a very stupid number over a decade after American Idol managed tallying the choice of millions more voters. Any solution to gerrymandering that doesn't include expanded the house can only exacerbate the situation. Put in enough reps and gerrymandering becomes a nonissue. Too expensive? 10x the reps won't need the same staff. They can do the copying and drafting and other work themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Maybe the gerrymandering and representation problem posting could go in its own thread since it doesn't have much to do with the SCOTUS or American law generally?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In terms of individual votes, your vote matters about equally no matter where you live. Even if it came down to a situation where your side had +1 vote over the other side, your individual vote still only matters as much as everyone else who voted the same way (i.e., incredibly minuscule).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This view is inconsistent with the idea that there exist unconstitutional forms of redistricting. It's unconstitutional to district against (certain) groups of people, not Joe Minority specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's unconstitutional to district against (certain) groups of people, not Joe Minority specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:But how could you district "against" according to that reasoning? For one example, dividing up a different cultural region into separate districts (like the area which a church services).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Please open another thread for revolutionary redistricting fantasies, if for no other reason than so the Supreme Court thread can be about the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
In fairness, it's going to be a month before anything happens at the Court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
DARPA posted:435 is a very stupid number over a decade after American Idol managed tallying the choice of millions more voters. Any solution to gerrymandering that doesn't include expanded the house can only exacerbate the situation. Put in enough reps and gerrymandering becomes a nonissue. Too expensive? 10x the reps won't need the same staff. They can do the copying and drafting and other work themselves. Congratulations, you've come up with lobbyist's wet dream - a bunch of people who don't know what the gently caress they're doing and have zero support staff so they'll happily listen to whatever a lobbyist proposes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:36
|
|