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.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Agreed. It is disheartening when discussion devolves into "I'm tough and you're weak" countered by "I'm smart and you're dumb" when we're all Americans. Demonization and dehumanization of the opposition is counter productive, unethical and immoral.

That's nice, but you said nothing when the coasts were being called weak, you only took offense when it was implied that miners were stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is unfair to characterise miners as being stupid. They merely tend to be less uneducated and less well informed (for the most part) which means they don't have the knowledge and tools like psychology and statistics to make sense of various kinds of things in the modern world.

And also in many cases they are highly trained engineers and the like, performing a complex and skilled job.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:

I have trouble following twitter conversations. Is he saying Trump is on record disavowing and condemning the kind of neo-nazi garbage Spencer and chums are getting up to?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

Honestly, until he actually bothers to post a "don't be a racist donkey-cave" post via his Twitter account it really doesn't mean much of anything.

 LordofHats wrote:
The issue isn't really smart vs not smart. The farmer probably knows way more about dairy cows than I ever will (probably more about guns to, even if he is disturbingly irresponsible in how he thinks bullets work). And Joe probably knows way more about Transcendental philosophy than I'll ever be able to keep up with. The problem is that they both overly value what intelligence and knowledge they do have, and leverage that into thinking they have special insights into other issues from which they then cast judgements on others.

Maybe people can just stop doing that all around eh? EDIT: Not directed specifically at you Relapse, your post is just what brought all this to mind.

That was a great post, a really good call for some humility from everyone. And I definitely include myself in that category.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Agreed. It is disheartening when discussion devolves into "I'm tough and you're weak" countered by "I'm smart and you're dumb" when we're all Americans. Demonization and dehumanization of the opposition is counter productive, unethical and immoral.

That's nice, but you said nothing when the coasts were being called weak, you only took offense when it was implied that miners were stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is unfair to characterise miners as being stupid. They merely tend to be less uneducated and less well informed (for the most part) which means they don't have the knowledge and tools like psychology and statistics to make sense of various kinds of things in the modern world.

And also in many cases they are highly trained engineers and the like, performing a complex and skilled job.

The posts I responded to were commenting on Oberlin College and Virginia miners. Oberlin College is in Ohio it's not on either coast but Virginia is on the east coast. I didn't comment on the coasts or the Midwest or any other geographical region and it's residents because those comments were overtly comical generalizations and didn't disparage a specific group of actual people.

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The issue isn't really smart vs not smart. The farmer probably knows way more about dairy cows than I ever will (probably more about guns to, even if he is disturbingly irresponsible in how he thinks bullets work). And Joe probably knows way more about Transcendental philosophy than I'll ever be able to keep up with. The problem is that they both overly value what intelligence and knowledge they do have, and leverage that into thinking they have special insights into other issues from which they then cast judgements on others.

Maybe people can just stop doing that all around eh? EDIT: Not directed specifically at you Relapse, your post is just what brought all this to mind.

That was a great post, a really good call for some humility from everyone. And I definitely include myself in that category.

Oh I'll be as arrogant as I damn well please in anything concerning historical methodologies, dissecting language for interpretation, and sourcing because I'm going bald at 27 from being a full time student with a full time (crappy minimum wage) job, but please hypothetical "working man of America (if that is your real name)" please go on an tell me how hard I'm not working, and how building Ford Fiesta's for twenty years has properly informed you on the origins of the Civil War*. I do never tire of hearing people talking about how it wasn't about slavery then proceeding to list something that just swings right back to it. As for anything else, I'm nothing more than an idiot, or a well read laymen.

*I don't even like the history of the Civil War, but you try going to school for a degree in history within 45 minutes of Gettysburg and not learning about it. I tried!

#FirstWorldProblems

I would probably be really good at writing a Buzzfeed article titled "7 Ways to Get Dry Crusty Poop Out Of Pubic Hair - #3 Will Shock You", that's where my student loan debt really shines.

 d-usa wrote:
I would probably be really good at writing a Buzzfeed article titled "7 Ways to Get Dry Crusty Poop Out Of Pubic Hair - #3 Will Shock You", that's where my student loan debt really shines.

I'm going to be honest.

#3 just wasn't shocking.

Fix your clickbait titles sir!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html?sr=fbCNN112316hillary-clinton-challenge-results

Will "Hackers" become the "Birthers" of the left? 2020 can't get here fast enough

Prestor Jon wrote:
The posts I responded to were commenting on Oberlin College and Virginia miners. Oberlin College is in Ohio it's not on either coast but Virginia is on the east coast. I didn't comment on the coasts or the Midwest or any other geographical region and it's residents because those comments were overtly comical generalizations and didn't disparage a specific group of actual people.

Okay that's fair enough, I retract my comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh I'll be as arrogant as I damn well please in anything concerning historical methodologies, dissecting language for interpretation, and sourcing because I'm going bald at 27 from being a full time student with a full time (crappy minimum wage) job, but please hypothetical "working man of America (if that is your real name)" please go on an tell me how hard I'm not working, and how building Ford Fiesta's for twenty years has properly informed you on the origins of the Civil War*. I do never tire of hearing people talking about how it wasn't about slavery then proceeding to list something that just swings right back to it. As for anything else, I'm nothing more than an idiot, or a well read laymen.

Oh I don't think there's anything arrogant about recognising that you know what you know, and putting it out there that you know more than other people about a given subject. When you know history, there's nothing with saying you know history.

The humility is more about being honest with yourself about where the limits of your recognising what you don't know. So a guy who's worked on Ford Fiestas for 20 years would be a pretty good source of knowledge for the change in models of the car over that time, and also the change in automation practices. But if the guy was humble enough he should be honest that his dad's oft repeated story that it was a War of Northern Aggression and had nothing to do with slavery probably isn't a deep or particularly reliable knowledge base.

For myself, from my job I've gotten pretty good in Excel, and in writing reports that sound great but say very little. And I can forward an email saying 'need reply on this matter, now well past deadline' like nobody on earth.

On other stuff, I'm an enthusiastic amateur on US politics, economics and WWII. I'm a million miles short of having real knowledge on any of those subjects, but I have enough knowledge to know when someone else is talking total crap. That's probably the other part of this, finding that way of establishing a position where someone may not be a complete expert, but they know enough to establish that someone else is talking out of their ass.

I went to Gettysburg by the way. The wife and I were both stunned out how beautiful the country and the towns were around the area


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html?sr=fbCNN112316hillary-clinton-challenge-results

Will "Hackers" become the "Birthers" of the left? 2020 can't get here fast enough

No word on whether Clinton will do anything about this.

Nate Cohn has done some analysis and found that if you control for age, income and race, the discrepancy in Wisconsin goes from +7 to 0. That is, he's established that the issue here is more that older, whiter, and wealthier areas were more likely to vote Trump and more like to have electronic voting machines. So there's probably nothing to this.

That said, there's nothing wrong with looking in to this stuff. There's nothing inherently wrong with asking if someone might have conspired to do something. You only become a conspiracy nut when you start denying any evidence that disproves your theory, and embrace any evidence that supports it no matter how flimsy. At this point no left wingers have committed to this, although a whole bunch did cling to that 9/11 Truther stuff, so it's possible they might cling to this as well.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html?sr=fbCNN112316hillary-clinton-challenge-results

Will "Hackers" become the "Birthers" of the left? 2020 can't get here fast enough

No word on whether Clinton will do anything about this.

Nate Cohn has done some analysis and found that if you control for age, income and race, the discrepancy in Wisconsin goes from +7 to 0. That is, he's established that the issue here is more that older, whiter, and wealthier areas were more likely to vote Trump and more like to have electronic voting machines. So there's probably nothing to this.

That said, there's nothing wrong with looking in to this stuff. There's nothing inherently wrong with asking if someone might have conspired to do something. You only become a conspiracy nut when you start denying any evidence that disproves your theory, and embrace any evidence that supports it no matter how flimsy. At this point no left wingers have committed to this, although a whole bunch did cling to that 9/11 Truther stuff, so it's possible they might cling to this as well.

Nate Silvers is pushing back at that as well:

Nate Silver ✔ @NateSilver538
To follow: some *very* quick analysis which suggests the claim here of rigged results in Wisconsin is probably BS: http://nym.ag/2gI6YLP

Nate Silver ✔ @NateSilver538
Run a regression on Wisc. counties with >=50K people, and you find that Clinton improved more in counties with only paper ballots. HOWEVER: pic.twitter.com/4swuU70NaY

...the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels, the key factors in predicting vote shifts this year. pic.twitter.com/NYOINx9lEz

Nate Silver ✔ @NateSilver538
Maybe a more complicated analysis would reveal something, but usually bad news when a finding can't survive a basic sanity check like this.

Also... has the term "President-Elect" always been used for the newly elected???

I don't know why, but it's bugging me when people say "President-Elect Trump" yaddiyadda... that's not a real thing.

It seems disrespectful towards President Obama.

It was used in the final season of West Wing a bunch. That counts, right?

 whembly wrote:


Also... has the term "President-Elect" always been used for the newly elected???

I don't know why, but it's bugging me when people say "President-Elect Trump" yaddiyadda... that's not a real thing.

It seems disrespectful towards President Obama.

Yes, since as long as I've been alive it's been the term used.... What I think you're seeing here is that, unlike previous presidents, Trump has been in the news A LOT more, and now he's got a title to add on, so you're hearing it a bunch more than perhaps would otherwise be usual.

 whembly wrote:
Also... has the term "President-Elect" always been used for the newly elected???

Since 1963, at least. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/178083

Yeah, the difference here is that the media is still hanging on every word Trump says and tweets, so it's in our face more than normal.

 whembly wrote:
Also... has the term "President-Elect" always been used for the newly elected???

Yes, it's been used as far back as I can remember.

I don't know why, but it's bugging me when people say "President-Elect Trump" yaddiyadda... that's not a real thing.

It is a real thing though. He's officially transferring into the role of President as defined by the GSA.

It seems disrespectful towards President Obama.

The Whembly doth protest too much, methinks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_President-Elect

Interesting read.

 whembly wrote:
Nate Silvers is pushing back at that as well:

Ah yes, Nate Silver. I got my Nate's mixed up.

Also... has the term "President-Elect" always been used for the newly elected???

I don't know why, but it's bugging me when people say "President-Elect Trump" yaddiyadda... that's not a real thing.

It seems disrespectful towards President Obama.

The lame duck period is kind of disrespectful to the sitting president when the other side of politics wins, by its very nature. It's like getting told you've been fired, but still have to show up to work for the next two months. It would have really sucked for GHW Bush and all one term presidents, it'd be a lot more personal then.

As mentioned previously, my dear Governor is in the running for Secretary of the Interior.

It appears she also likes circumventing FOIA laws and private emails:

OKLAHOMA CITY (KOKH) — The governor has defended claims she received emails about state business on a private email account, but FOX 25 has obtained records showing the governor has used that personal email to send messages about state business.

Records obtained exclusively by FOX 25 show Governor Mary Fallin using the non-governmental account to set up meeting with lobbyists hoping to influence the legislative cycle.

“We know that the governor and several members of her staff used a private email account for government business,” said Bob Nelon, an attorney representing a former Tulsa World reporter in an open records lawsuit against the governor. Nelon has also represented FOX 25 in the past in unrelated cases.

One issue in the lawsuit by the former newspaper reporter is the governor’s use of a personal email account. Records pertaining to the lawsuit show the governor has received emails via a private server and other members of her staff have used personal email accounts to conduct state business in the past.

Some of those emails sent on the unsecured private server contained state secrets.

“There was some sensitive information there that they now believe should be redacted and withheld from public view were exchanged on a private server,” Nelon said based on records he’s reviewed of emails that went through government accounts.

(more at link)

I fully expect her to be dragged to the tower, made to sign a confession, and burned at the stake for her sins

Thanks for clearing that up guys.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

It seems disrespectful towards President Obama.

The Whembly doth protest too much, methinks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
As mentioned previously, my dear Governor is in the running for Secretary of the Interior.

It appears she also likes circumventing FOIA laws and private emails:

OKLAHOMA CITY (KOKH) — The governor has defended claims she received emails about state business on a private email account, but FOX 25 has obtained records showing the governor has used that personal email to send messages about state business.

Records obtained exclusively by FOX 25 show Governor Mary Fallin using the non-governmental account to set up meeting with lobbyists hoping to influence the legislative cycle.

“We know that the governor and several members of her staff used a private email account for government business,” said Bob Nelon, an attorney representing a former Tulsa World reporter in an open records lawsuit against the governor. Nelon has also represented FOX 25 in the past in unrelated cases.

One issue in the lawsuit by the former newspaper reporter is the governor’s use of a personal email account. Records pertaining to the lawsuit show the governor has received emails via a private server and other members of her staff have used personal email accounts to conduct state business in the past.

Some of those emails sent on the unsecured private server contained state secrets.

“There was some sensitive information there that they now believe should be redacted and withheld from public view were exchanged on a private server,” Nelon said based on records he’s reviewed of emails that went through government accounts.

(more at link)

Seriously... throw the book at her.

I'm curious as to the nature of "state secret" at the state level....

 whembly wrote:


I'm curious as to the nature of "state secret" at the state level....

She let out how much corn has been seeded

Damn... should have saved that joke for something Iowa related

Anyone read about the Wisconsin decision on gerrymandering. A federal court struck down the Wisconsin electoral changes not because of racial bias, but because one party was disadvantaged to excess. They used an interesting idea of measuring 'wasted votes', ie votes that were cast in a losing seat, or votes that were cast in an overwhelming win, compared to votes needed to actually win a seat. Comparing one side's efficiency to the other side give you a decent measure of how fair the electorate distribution is.

Anyhow, this thing is going to the Supreme Court, and it could be a really big deal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-22/wisconsin-republicans-gerrymander-takes-politics-too-far

 sebster wrote:
Anyone read about the Wisconsin decision on gerrymandering. A federal court struck down the Wisconsin electoral changes not because of racial bias, but because one party was disadvantaged to excess. They used an interesting idea of measuring 'wasted votes', ie votes that were cast in a losing seat, or votes that were cast in an overwhelming win, compared to votes needed to actually win a seat. Comparing one side's efficiency to the other side give you a decent measure of how fair the electorate distribution is.

That actually not a bad way of dealing with gerrymandering actually. One of the reasons I've always been skeptical of "we need to fix gerrymandering" is because the why is noble but the how has never been clear. That actually seems like it would work rather well.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I'm curious as to the nature of "state secret" at the state level....

She let out how much corn has been seeded

Damn... should have saved that joke for something Iowa related

Probably the list of new foods to be deep-fried at this years State Fair.

 LordofHats wrote:
That actually not a bad way of dealing with gerrymandering actually. One of the reasons I've always been skeptical of "we need to fix gerrymandering" is because the why is noble but the how has never been clear. That actually seems like it would work rather well.

I think it's a pretty questionable idea, for two reasons:

1) It assumes that party affiliation is static over time. Whether or not a district is "unfairly gerrymandered" can change from year to year based only on who people decide to vote for. The simple approach isn't sufficient, you'd need to have a much more complicated analysis to account for things like exceptionally popular/unpopular candidates, regions that are biased one way or the other no matter how the district lines are drawn, etc. And no matter how you do it you're getting dangerously close to making the two-party system a legal fact instead of just a trend. There is no single "opposition party" in most districts, there is at least one major party and one or more minor parties. The simple system says none of this matters, only the two major parties count for anything.

2) It assumes that the ideal district is a 50/50 split. For example, a major city may vote overwhelmingly democrat every year, resulting in a large percentage of "wasted" votes. But what is the alternative? Splitting the city in half down the middle and adding each half to some republican-dominated rural areas so that both of the new districts are 50/50? Now neither the city nor the rural areas has representation that is devoted to their specific interests. Arguably the city should continue to have its "unfair" district with its "wasted" votes, but also a representative that is devoted to the city's interests. And what if one party just isn't popular at all? Should we be forced to have convoluted "ideal" districts for the sake of having as many 50/50 elections as possible, or should we acknowledge that one side sucks and will lose elections until they get some better candidates?

The better solution is more complicated, and needs to look at things like how district borders reflect existing geographical/cultural/city borders, perimeter vs. area enclosed, etc. The ideal district is one with a low perimeter to area ratio that aligns naturally with existing borders, so figure out a way to quantify this and identify which districts significantly deviate from the ideal.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) It assumes that party affiliation is static over time. Whether or not a district is "unfairly gerrymandered" can change from year to year based only on who people decide to vote for. The simple approach isn't sufficient, you'd need to have a much more complicated analysis to account for things like exceptionally popular/unpopular candidates, regions that are biased one way or the other no matter how the district lines are drawn, etc. And no matter how you do it you're getting dangerously close to making the two-party system a legal fact instead of just a trend. There is no single "opposition party" in most districts, there is at least one major party and one or more minor parties. The simple system says none of this matters, only the two major parties count for anything.

I'm not so worried about that. Districts are only redrawn every ten years, and this is basically the counter-method the political parties use when gerrymandering (trying to equalize voters in a space as opposed to trying to maximize voters in a space). It's biggest problem is that District lines that only take into account voter distribution can still produce odd results. Representatives are meant to represent people in their district, but that can get bizarre when in an attempt to equalize voters you end up with the outskirts of an industrial city and a highly agricultural area in the same district. In some ways basing districts on maximizing a particular type of voter can actually be argued to be better for the House, because you get more people of like mind represented by the same person, who can then work with other persons from similar districts on mutual goals (the obvious problem then being partisanship).

2) It assumes that the ideal district is a 50/50 split.

I actually don't think it assumes that at all. It's kind of an impossibility. You can never get a 50/50 split, both because its impractical, and because people don't split that way politically. You have Dems, Reps, Greens, Libs, people who don't give a gak all in the same voter pool. Analysis voting trends over a 10 year period, and you can reasonably gauge a districts make up and voting behavior. To then require a lose rule (not a 50.50 split) that a district should not be cut in such a way as to maximize a particular kind of voter is not entirely unworkable. There'd still be districts where you can't do that, just because I don't ever see rural West Virginia having a huge body of blue voters, but it would make it harder to justify cutting a semicircle around a black neighborhood to keep them out of a red district.

The biggest obstacle to fixing gerrymandering is establishing a objective non partisan method of doing so. Math works well for that. You'd still have gerrymandering, because with a lose split goal you'd still have people trying to maximize their voter base, but it would be harder to artificially produce a 90% Democrat/Republican district than it is right now.

At the very least, it's a decent way to determine a district is gerrymandered, even if it is an ineffective way of designing one not to be.

The better solution is more complicated, and needs to look at things like how district borders reflect existing geographical/cultural/city borders, perimeter vs. area enclosed, etc. The ideal district is one with a low perimeter to area ratio that aligns naturally with existing borders, so figure out a way to quantify this and identify which districts significantly deviate from the ideal.

I honestly suspect that's so complicated no politician would ever go for it

It's almost most like we need something...like a codified rule of some sort telling the fething politicians that they no longer get to have private servers.

They have lost the privilege.

fethers.

 Pouncey wrote:
Actually, that's not the solution I'm proposing, the gas tax is the solution your own government proposed several decades ago when they made it a thing. I'm just repeating your government's statements that there doesn't seem to be another way to do it.

Some thing you haven't considered. They raise gas tax. This hurts poor(and middle class) big time. This mean they have to cut their spendings elsewhere. This means goverment tax income from OTHER sources drops. This will lead they will have to balance that. How? Most likely solution...Take money earned by gas tax increase.

Also because the poor got hurt internal demand decreased overall which in turn hurts many businesses which can easily lead into loss of jobs and therefore reduced tax.

Have fun with your solution that didn't work out after all.

It's not as easy as "just raise the taxes". If you try to take money from poor like you they don't have much to take, if you take more from rich they will tend to find other ways to avoid it anyway legally and even then there's less to be gained from rich than one things(fun fact. If one would take every money from every rich finn every year leaving them 0€ per year that would still not fix Finland's budget issue...Problem being rich have money but not many are rich)

 LordofHats wrote:
That actually not a bad way of dealing with gerrymandering actually. One of the reasons I've always been skeptical of "we need to fix gerrymandering" is because the why is noble but the how has never been clear. That actually seems like it would work rather well.

Yeah, I was much the same. Gerrymandering is one of those 'know it when you see it' things, and that's not great for a legal standard This struck me as a really simple, intuitive solution.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) It assumes that party affiliation is static over time.

This isn't looking at existing districts, but at the impact of re-districting. I might be mistaken, but I don't think you can't take look at the district boundaries, realise they've become unfair over time, and take it to court. This is about observing the impact of new district boundaries and seeing if they've become more unfair than what was in place before then.

And no matter how you do it you're getting dangerously close to making the two-party system a legal fact instead of just a trend. There is no single "opposition party" in most districts, there is at least one major party and one or more minor parties. The simple system says none of this matters, only the two major parties count for anything.

I can't see how this impacts on third party voting as well. The test won't work for parties that fail to win seats (so every vote is wasted), and yeah the test works best with two parties. But failing to have a special consideration for minor parties is not the same thing as actively harming them.

2) It assumes that the ideal district is a 50/50 split. For example, a major city may vote overwhelmingly democrat every year, resulting in a large percentage of "wasted" votes.

It doesn't. It assumes that the wasted votes for one side should be roughly equal to the wasted votes for the other side. So it is okay with there being some districts that vote 80% blue, but only if a proportionate number of districts for the red team are also won with 80% votes. That's the clever thing about the formula, it takes the wasted votes for each side and then compares those two numbers. If both sides have 40% 'wasted' votes, there's no problem. But if one party has 50% wasted votes and the other side has 30% wasted votes, then it's pretty clear that the new district boundaries have a strong gerrymander.

The better solution is more complicated, and needs to look at things like how district borders reflect existing geographical/cultural/city borders, perimeter vs. area enclosed, etc. The ideal district is one with a low perimeter to area ratio that aligns naturally with existing borders, so figure out a way to quantify this and identify which districts significantly deviate from the ideal.

Those are all still considerations for re-districting. There's just this new standard that might be potentially added as well, so as well as all the above there's also a consideration to make sure that the voting share fairly produces a reasonable number of elected representatives.

Mathematically the "Wasted Votes" standard, is much more straight forward and easier to understand. The sad thing about math is that the more complicated it becomes, the less people understand it, and the less they give a damn what it says. And math is one of those areas where you either get it or you don't.