|
Retro42 posted:Wisconsin is broken even more fundamentally than that. Gerrymandering for sure is an issue, but at its core WI is a Deep South red state with a few big Blue cities. I wish redistributing/voting reform would be the fix but I doubt it would be enough. https://isthmus.com/news/news/dems-sweep-statewide-offices-in-midterms-but-remain-underrepresented-in-assembly/ They won 54% of the vote in the state assembly and got 36% of the seats That's not red, that's just straight hosed.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
The disintegration of American democracy is all *rolls dice* the next generation's fault!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Lemming posted:https://isthmus.com/news/news/dems-sweep-statewide-offices-in-midterms-but-remain-underrepresented-in-assembly/ I’m not disagreeing with you. It’s just that with so much of the Dem vote coming from Madison and Milwaukee(Chicago commute suburbs included) voters it’s absurdly geographically skewed Republican as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:I’m not disagreeing with you. It’s just that with so much of the Dem vote coming from Madison and Milwaukee(Chicago commute suburbs included) voters it’s absurdly geographically skewed Republican as well. Who gives a poo poo, without gerrymandering it doesn't matter where you live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Who gives a poo poo, without gerrymandering it doesn't matter where you live. This is not correct. Even if districts are drawn by machines with no intention or capability to gerrymander, extreme partisan geographic clustering is likely to produce results skewed towards the more dispersed party under the existing rules of American elections. The reasons for this are complicated but in order to mitigate this effect without gerrymandering in favor of Democrats you need something like multi-member districts. Of course this kind of natural skew is no where near as dramatic as the intentional kind, but it’s definitely a major structural weakness inherent to the Democratic coalition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This is not correct. Even if districts are drawn by machines with no intention or capability to gerrymander, extreme partisan geographic clustering is likely to produce results skewed towards the more dispersed party under the existing rules of American elections. The reasons for this are complicated but in order to mitigate this effect without gerrymandering in favor of Democrats you need something like multi-member districts. Fine, it almost doesn't matter. Who cares. The point is that if gerrymandering is fixed, the problems more or less instantly go away. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be good enough that a solid majority will win a majority of the seats. Since a majority of voters vote Democratic, that's all that matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Is the Fedalists judge lists public info? People need to do their civil duty and make their peaceful voices known to those candidates , that poo poo rag, and their senators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Fine, it almost doesn't matter. Who cares. The point is that if gerrymandering is fixed, the problems more or less instantly go away. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be good enough that a solid majority will win a majority of the seats. Since a majority of voters vote Democratic, that's all that matters. It actually matters a lot and if politicians make the same assumptions as you are making here they are going to lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Isn't "natural" gerrymandering worth about 3%? I'm having trouble finding a number but that's what I recall from looking at it before. Someone feel free to correct the actual number if you have it but basically that means even with machine drawn districts, Dems can win a slight majority and still lose. What we need is proportional representation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1070438427089354752 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...b+Article+Links quote:Canada has arrested the chief financial officer of China’s Huawei Technologies who is facing extradition to the United States on suspicion she violated U.S. trade sanctions against Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
after living in Wisconsin there is really not that many people outside the suburbs, like the northern part of the state is loving empty outside of Superior
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Isn't "natural" gerrymandering worth about 3%? I'm having trouble finding a number but that's what I recall from looking at it before. Someone feel free to correct the actual number if you have it but basically that means even with machine drawn districts, Dems can win a slight majority and still lose. That sounds about right to me but I think it should vary a bit by state depending on the local partisan distribution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It actually matters a lot and if politicians make the same assumptions as you are making here they are going to lose. The last few percentage points is pretty inconsequential when things are currently this bad. The broad issue is gerrymandering is super loving everything up
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:after living in Wisconsin there is really not that many people outside the suburbs, like the northern part of the state is loving empty outside of Superior This is the thing. There are really large parts of the state with people scattered in small towns all over the place. Wisconsin is mostly small towns that will always skew Republican. Case in point: Grothman WI-6. https://grothman.house.gov/district/interactivemap.htm He won by 11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
marshmonkey posted:https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1070438427089354752
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I wonder who it even plays with (aside from his base). Coal country is not a huge population, and the dispossessed coal industry workforce is famously tiny. For it to make sense for him to grandstand about building new coal plants, the entire country would have to be clamoring about power prices being too high or something. And last I checked people's electrical bills were somewhere around priority #472 on their hot-button topic lists. When Hillary said, "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" (Yes, I know it was in the context of an answer largely sympathetic to the plight of coal miners) she was signaling that she was willing to put environmental concerns, and perhaps other international concerns, above the welfare of certain citizens. Now, the loudest voices on the right tend to be people who want to develop the last habitat of an endangered species or think rolling coal is a constitutional right, but the question of exactly how much the government can or should (different questions) curtail citizens' rights in the name of environmental protection is worth examining. The current reality is that succefully addressing global warming will require far more invasive and heavy handed interventions than a few coal miners losing their jobs, and once you open that door, how far are we as a country prepared to go? The suggestion that people displaced by these decisions will be able to seamlessly transition to new industries or be provided for by government welfare also deserves scrutiny. Really, "coal jobs" is about the basic question of how much the government can take from citizens in the name of the greater good, and who gets to define what that means, except people don't discuss it in those terms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't really about coal and it never has been. Coal is just a convenient shorthand for larger issues; it is the current flashpoint in the fight over how far we are prepared to put environmental issues over the interest of citizens or workers. Do citizens and workers live on a different planet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Really, "coal jobs" is about the basic question of how much the government can take from citizens in the name of the greater good, and who gets to define what that means, except people don't discuss it in those terms. This rings particularly true, as somebody in the energy industry. Coal just isn't really discussed very often, and when it is, it's usually about how the regulation changes are moving their decommission date forward or backwards. There's not a lot of politics or climate change ideology behind those conversations, it's just dollars. There are plenty of Trump voters around here, but nobody is defending coal as a serious long term solution. At the end of the day, coal is heavy, and buried underground, and miners hurt themselves and get cancer. All of those are incredibly expensive to deal with. The regulations may have hastened the death of the coal industry, but the second somebody got a solar panel powering an entire house they were on borrowed time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:This is the thing. There are really large parts of the state with people scattered in small towns all over the place. Wisconsin is mostly small towns that will always skew Republican. Case in point: I mean, it's not an impossible fix - mandate some limit for population inequality in state assembly/senate districts and then meet that mandate by either putting suburbs together with rural districts or increasing the size of the assembly/senate until you don't have to. Like you say, it doesn't necessarily fix everything if some types of districts are more politically homogeneous than others, but it goes a long way towards fixing a system where a 10 point popular vote win turns into a 30 loving point loss in the assembly and a 10 point loss in the Senate. Stickman fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:after living in Wisconsin there is really not that many people outside the suburbs, like the northern part of the state is loving empty outside of Superior And that's just because Superior never gives up her dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
marshmonkey posted:https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1070438427089354752 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Buckle up for next year stockholders. China is probably going to arrest like 10 american CFOs and announce 100% tarriffs on american cars. Edit: I honestly think this may be the worst foreign policy move the trump administration has made so far, which is saying a lot. mystes fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/st...ingawful.com%2F https://twitter.com/emptywheel/stat...ingawful.com%2F They might have flipped a Russian spy
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:They might have flipped a Russian spy Isn’t that pretty hazardous for your health?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:When Hillary said, "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" (Yes, I know it was in the context of an answer largely sympathetic to the plight of coal miners) she was signaling that she was willing to put environmental concerns, and perhaps other international concerns, above the welfare of certain citizens. This reminds me of the coal lobbyist organizations that give schools grants to teach pro-coal curriculum in coal mining states. Last time I looked at their Web site, they had booklets of presentations from the grant-winning teachers on their lessons and the kids' output. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
shot: https://twitter.com/insidehighered/status/1070365555906043908?s=19 chaser: https://twitter.com/kjzzphoenix/status/1059858561994379264?s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
; As an aside I love your effort posts with a cute animal chaser  you're a v cool person. However, I'm confused because you very obviously posted a cloud with what look like airplane lights flying through them!  please keep up the cute doggos and cattes 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
The Trump organization has finally been subpoenaed for their business and tax records in relation to the emuluments lawsuit levied against him
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1070460588608778240 https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1070470375320866816
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
mystes posted:More like buckle up for tomorrow. Note that this one is not about Trump's tariffs, but your endless tantrum over losing your Iranian puppet dictator. I'd expect the retaliation will be different this time than counter-tariffs targeted at Trump-supporting regions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Isn't "natural" gerrymandering worth about 3%? I'm having trouble finding a number but that's what I recall from looking at it before. Someone feel free to correct the actual number if you have it but basically that means even with machine drawn districts, Dems can win a slight majority and still lose. Do you mean like states in the electoral college? Because I was just arguing this and as of 2010 (the last census) California as a whole loses about 2% of it's voting power, but that doesn't tell the whole story because California isn't D+100, and while it may be just 2% in California, but a state like Wyoming gets roughly a 0.5% boost in terms of power from having the electoral college. To go further, the 20 least populous states get 83 electoral votes to California's 55, but have about 10% of the population to California's 12. It's also 10% for 15% of the College, compared to California's 12% for 10%
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
The electoral college is a really lovely example of proportional representation, if it qualifies at all, and also one that does not apply to the post you were quoting, i.e. state level positions. What would be more relevant would be something like single transferable vote, which if I recall correctly is pretty much what the Fair Representation Act would have been. Edit: Though I might be mistaken as to the point you're trying to make here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:The electoral college is a really lovely example of proportional representation, if it qualifies at all, and also one that does not apply to the post you were quoting, i.e. state level positions. What would be more relevant would be something like single transferable vote, which if I recall correctly is pretty much what the Fair Representation Act would have been. What are states if not an example of "natural" gerrymandering? Which is why I asked what the poster meant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Do you mean like states in the electoral college? Because I was just arguing this and as of 2010 (the last census) California as a whole loses about 2% of it's voting power, but that doesn't tell the whole story because California isn't D+100, and while it may be just 2% in California, but a state like Wyoming gets roughly a 0.5% boost in terms of power from having the electoral college. To go further, the 20 least populous states get 83 electoral votes to California's 55, but have about 10% of the population to California's 12. It's also 10% for 15% of the College, compared to California's 12% for 10% No, when someone talks about a "natural" gerrymander, they are talking about how, in our current political environment, cities are often very blue and rural areas are red but not quite as overwhelmingly so. So if you drew perfect neutral algorithm determined districts, you'd still end up with Dems running up the score in the city districts and the GOP winning tighter races in greater numbers of rural districts. It just wouldn't be as bad as it is now when partisan map makers snake their districts out to shove every minority voter in the state in one token D district so they can rack up squeakers everywhere else even during a blue wave. HootTheOwl posted:What are states if not an example of "natural" gerrymandering? Which is why I asked what the poster meant. Jethro fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do citizens and workers live on a different planet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Sure, but if you tell people "distant technocrats have decided that you personally have to take an L to save the environment, so we're doing that", they're going to be pretty receptive to a politician who says, "vote for me and you won't have to." How you square that circle has profound implications, particularly as the necessary interventions start ramping up. I'm sorry, could you be specific about who is taking an 'L' if climate change is mitigated versus if it isn't, I'm struggling to think of a single person who wouldn't be materially better off by avoiding famines, extreme weather disasters, and war. Old people who are about to die and hate their kids? Multibillionaires whose extra profits would insulate them from the consequences of climate catastrophe? War profiteers? Russian oligarchs with large landholdings in soon-to-be-more-arable northern areas? Like who are you talking about because it certainly isn't your average Trump voter who benefits from a few hundred corporations dooming the environment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
oh my god i am so suprised how did no one see this coming shock horror disbelief. https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/1070764438440083458
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:The electoral college is a really lovely example of proportional representation, if it qualifies at all, and also one that does not apply to the post you were quoting, i.e. state level positions. What would be more relevant would be something like single transferable vote, which if I recall correctly is pretty much what the Fair Representation Act would have been. The electoral college was basically set up at a time when travelling the United States to vote in presidential election and transporting a bunch of votes to be validated and confirmed in D.C would have more or less been unfeasible so a representative was sent in the states stead to cast a vote on their behalf to make sure D.C and the other states were in sync on who voted for who and where. Nowadays I'm not sure what purpose it serves other than tradition. It's also not really proportional representation at all otherwise the candidate wouldn't just get every single electoral vote from a state the moment they are confirmed to be first past the post. If the electoral college were reformed to give proportional state votes to a candidate based on the percentage of votes they got from that state it might actually be a halfway decent system if not superior to a lot of other electoral systems in a lot of democracies but alas. As has been said before the system the house uses is probably the closest to proportional representation the U.S has while the Senate is probably the least since it grants disproportionate power and representation to less populated states. For example Wyoming manages to have 3 electoral votes, 2 senators and only one house rep because nobody really lives there. Kale fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Kale posted:The electoral college was basically set up at a time when travelling the United States to vote in presidential election and transporting a bunch of votes to be validated in D.C would have more or less been unfeasible so a representative was sent in the states stead to cast a vote on their behalf. Nowadays I'm not sure what purpose it serves other than tradition. It's also not really proportional representation at all otherwise the candidate wouldn't just get every single electoral vote from a state the moment they are confirmed to be first past the post. If the electoral college were reformed to give proportional state votes to a candidate based on the percentage of votes they got from that state it might actually be a halfway decent system if not superior to a lot of other electoral systems in a lot of democracies but alas 6 out of the 10 participating states held popular votes for president in the very first election, the impossibility of counting votes wasn't the reason (obviously or you couldn't elect your congressional representatives). And why would you have to transport votes to DC, do you think all your ballots for governor are physically transported to the state capitol to be counted there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 21:30
|
|