Congressional Tea Party talks about the American Government Shutdown: "It's exactly what we wanted!"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

Yup, everyone hates congress, but likes their own congressperson. Therefore, I don't see much changing. Plus, gerrymandering.

**AlmightyWalrus**

That's a point. This isn't meant to be a dig at the US (for once!

), but as a dirty foreigner, how is gerrymandering legal? Stacking the deck in favour of one or the other seems iffy at best.

**Forar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a point. This isn't meant to be a dig at the US (for once! ), but as a dirty foreigner, how is gerrymandering legal? Stacking the deck in favour of one or the other seems iffy at best.

Like many tools, it can be used for good and for ill.

It can be used to give minorities a voice more easily than they would if they simply faded into the background of the majority.

It can also be used to tailor the areas in a way that the affected sections are all but untouchable, barring massive shifts in the politics of said population.

But it's gotten a bad rap recently because of what many seem to see as transparently doing more of the latter than the former.

**whembly**

Forar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a point. This isn't meant to be a dig at the US (for once! ), but as a dirty foreigner, how is gerrymandering legal? Stacking the deck in favour of one or the other seems iffy at best.

Like many tools, it can be used for good and for ill.

It can be used to give minorities a voice more easily than they would if they simply faded into the background of the majority.

It can also be used to tailor the areas in a way that the affected sections are all but untouchable, barring massive shifts in the politics of said population.

But it's gotten a bad rap recently because of what many seem to see as transparently doing more of the latter than the former.

Exactly... all political parties do this. It's a tactic to maximize the incumbent's re-election chances.

That's why there are calls to have term limits to mitigate this a bit.

**Ahtman**

We have term limits, it is called voting. It isn't the systems fault that people continue to complain about politicians and yet vote the same ones in over and over. The problem here is a disconnect in the voting body between what it says it wants and what it actually does.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
We have term limits, it is called voting. It isn't the systems fault that people continue to complain about politicians and yet vote the same ones in over and over. The problem here is a disconnect in the voting body between what it says it wants and what it actually does.

Well... yeah... I'd agree with you there. You are right.

Hence things like the "low information" voters...

**Easy E**

Or we could do like California and have a computer do the redisticting.

**sebster**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a point. This isn't meant to be a dig at the US (for once! ), but as a dirty foreigner, how is gerrymandering legal? Stacking the deck in favour of one or the other seems iffy at best.

Without an independant electoral commission granted power to set electoral boundaries, who else is there to set boundaries but the government of the day? Sure, whoever is in majority will be prone to trying to draw the lines in their own favour, but given the US distaste of granting power to an independant body they don't really have an alternative.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
but given the US distaste of granting power to an independant body they don't really have an alternative.

To be fair, our real problem is believing anybody is independent.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
sebster wrote:
but given the US distaste of granting power to an independant body they don't really have an alternative.
To be fair, our real problem is believing anybody is independent.

Yeah... that's a very good point.

How can we overcome this?

**Manchu**

The creation of a non-governmental bi-partisan institution would be a good first step. If such an organization can accomplish anything at all, it would be in a great position to build confidence in allegedly independent governmental bodies. In the current political atmosphere, it would suffer fatal attacks from the right. (See e.g., "RINO" "Republicrat" etc.)

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
The creation of a non-governmental bi-partisan institution would be a good first step. If such an organization can accomplish anything at all, it would be in a great position to build confidence in allegedly independent governmental bodies. In the current political atmosphere, it would suffer fatal attacks from the right. (See e.g., "RINO" "Republicrat" etc.)

and the left.. (see Diebold, Haliburton, etc...).

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:
and the left.. (see Diebold, Haliburton, etc...)

I don't think those are the same kind of examples ...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I am advocating that the parties work together to set up a non-governmental institution to build agreement on a limited number of issues.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
and the left.. (see Diebold, Haliburton, etc...)
I don't think those are the same kind of examples ...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I am advocating that the parties work together to set up a non-governmental institution to build agreement on a limited number of issues.

Cool... I always thought that the judiciary should be the one to draw the lines as they're generally immune to re-election threats. But, that does incur problems of its own.

**Frazzled**

I definitely don't want unelected untouchable judges doing it.

I like the California method of a bipartisan committee. I like the concept of just doing grids via KOMPUTAH!!! even better.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
I definitely don't want unelected untouchable judges doing it.

I like the California method of a bipartisan committee. I like the concept of just doing grids via KOMPUTAH!!! even better.

Point taken...

So... the computer can make that determination. Have you seen controversy that the computer-based BCS rankings go through every year?

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
I definitely don't want unelected untouchable judges doing it.

Same here. The Supreme Court is the least democratic part of our government by a long shot.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I definitely don't want unelected untouchable judges doing it.
Same here. The Supreme Court is the least democratic part of our government by a long shot.

Dear God that means we actually agree in three threads today. Its the End Times! Run!

**Manchu**

"And when the third agreement was posted, I saw a pale horse ..."

**skyth**

I saw a way of determining if districts are fair or not...Something about the average distance or something. Can't remember the specifics, but that would be easy to check with a computer/have a computer generate.

Edit...found it. From http://www.fraudfactor.com/ffgerrymander.html#compactnessmetricintro.

A formula can be derived for a Compactness Metric to determine whether an election district lacks compactness and is likely to be gerrymandered. One such compactness metric is the value CM = B/Sqrt(A) = the total length of the boundary of an election district divided by the square root of the area of the district. An equivalent but more useful compactness metric is the value CM2 = B2/A = the square of the total length of the boundary of an election district divided by the area of the district. This compactness metric is more useful because it provides a greater range of values and greater differences between the values to be compared.

**Forar**

Doing so mathematically/by computer has pros and cons.

As a pro, it reduces intentionally setting up districts that disenfranchise a given population.

As a con, it also removes the ability to do so as has been done in the past, to grant a subsection of a population (yes, often a minority) a distinct voice, as it were.

Of course, some have expressed that the latter is also a pro, but I find that it's usually part of some fairly repugnant subtext anyway.