Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Miami)   FL GOP to judge: So I know you said the districts we drew make a mockery of the democratic process and all, but it's gonna take us... say, two years to redraw them, so we're cool using them until then right?   (miami.cbslocal.com) divider line 135
    More: Unlikely, GOP, tags, Don Gaetz, League of Women Voters, Steve Weatherford, congressional districts, absentee ballots, Common Cause  
•       •       •

4012 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2014 at 3:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-19 07:41:35 PM  
simpsonswiki.com
I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Democracy just doesn't work
 
2014-07-19 07:44:03 PM  

officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


Yeah ..cry me a river.  The last congressional race  Democratic votes exceed Republican votes by more than half a million.
And yet the GOP has a huge advantage 234 to 201.  Sounds fair to me?
 
2014-07-19 07:58:49 PM  

The Name: sendtodave: You know what would solve all of this?

Philosopher kings.

In all seriousness, some states would probably actually fare better if they were run by a benevolent-enough dictator.  Recent history has shown us that some places (I'm looking at you, Kansas, Florida and North Carolina) are on average just too stupid to make decisions for themselves through the democratic process.


Everything runs better under a benevolent dictator.

Pretty tough finding one and keeping them that way.
 
2014-07-19 08:05:20 PM  

Smackledorfer: The Name: sendtodave: You know what would solve all of this?

Philosopher kings.

In all seriousness, some states would probably actually fare better if they were run by a benevolent-enough dictator.  Recent history has shown us that some places (I'm looking at you, Kansas, Florida and North Carolina) are on average just too stupid to make decisions for themselves through the democratic process.

Everything runs better under a benevolent dictator.

Pretty tough finding one and keeping them that way.


Lord Acton's rule.
 
2014-07-19 08:13:57 PM  
Florida GOTP "Judge we're going to violate the law just one more time for old time's sake. Is that so bad?  Since we've already sent ballots to our troops if we are forced to clean up the mess we made before the election the troops might feel like they have been left out of our new and improved plans to fark over Floridians and that will make them cry.  WHy do you want to make our brave troops cry, Judge?"
 
2014-07-19 08:16:53 PM  

officeday: Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


Oh yeah, you're the victim in all of this. (conservative credentials confirmed)
 
2014-07-19 08:26:20 PM  
officeday: Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....

Absolutely.

After the shiat your party has pulled on everyone around the entire world in the past 14 years...
 
2014-07-19 08:28:24 PM  
That it took 2 years for a judge to decide that the 2012 Florida GOP redistricting plan was in violation of the law is a bigger shame than the plan itself (which is a farce, in and of itself).
 
2014-07-19 08:37:39 PM  

officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


Ohhh, did baby leave his echo chamber for a minute ?

/pssssttt...Fark isn't liberal. Unless you think facts and accuracy are liberal.
 
2014-07-19 08:43:00 PM  

ox45tallboy: mod_reright: lilbjorn: There's a computer program now that can draw them in a few seconds, once the data is entered.  And it will be unbiased.  This should be required for all states.

No, it shouldn't.  It should be part of the process, maybe, but there should also be human input.  Such a system can disenfranchise groups of people.  There are non-gerrymandering reasons for redistricting.

I believe the way to do it is make all Representatives elected from the state's population at large. For instance, Florida has 27 Representatives. On election day, everyone votes for the candidate they think represents them the best, and you take the top 27 vote-getters. In this manner, ANY group of people that can churn up enough support for their cause gets a representative in Congress. Whether that's the teachers' union, the corporate bigwigs, the factory workers, the fast-food workers, even the unemployed people can get their own rep if there's enough of them.

This would solve several problems at once, not the least of which is gerrymandering. It also enables any minority group with vested interests to have a pretty good shot at getting their own rep regardless of the proximity of their homes. Sure, candidates have to have a statewide campaign, but that's not as bad as what you might think - most people are going to vote for someone relating to their job, their church, or a particular issue they feel strongly about, so they'd likely find out easily which candidate best fits their interests. Racial minorities making only single-digit percentages of the population could easily get representation in this manner.

The candidates are supposed to represent the people. Back in the olden days they were chosen to represent people on a geographical basis for practical reasons, most of which don't apply anymore. The atheist stockbroker who lives in a million dollar mansion probably doesn't have the same interests as the christian factory worker who lives in a trailer park a few miles away, and neither have much in common with the immigrant store owner that sells them their coffee each morning - but they're all supposedly represented by the same person. This needs to change.


I like the cut of you jib, but I do think there is an idea l number for it. Something more than 5, but probably less than 10. 27 is not that number. The first time that the system was used, a handful of people would be so popular statewide that they may have 10x as many votes as the 27th place candidate, who would equally get a seat. These very popular candidates would have to find ways to focus their efforts and spread their popularity to others that agree with them. It would be messy. Finally, you're giving the voter a very long ballot with over 50 names on it and asking them to choose one. It may be difficult for voters to find the candidate they want. It may be difficult for them to feel secure in their decision. This is the reason your grocer stocks 3 brands of pasta, not 20.
 
2014-07-19 08:43:44 PM  

ghare: officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....

Ohhh, did baby leave his echo chamber for a minute ?

/pssssttt...Fark isn't liberal. Unless you think facts and accuracy are liberal.


According to Faux News, facts and accuracy *are* liberal, haven't you been paying attention to the soulless minions of evil at Faux News these past few years? I know that they have been spewing forth all manner of falsehoods and distorions, but one *must* pay attention to them, otherwise one will not know what the talking points of the forces of darkness are this hour.
 
2014-07-19 08:52:26 PM  
Use the map previous to the one the GOP submitted.
 
2014-07-19 09:06:40 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: EngineerAU: Outsource it to Canada. They seem to know how to come up with electoral districts that don't look like a Rorschach Test.

[img.fark.net image 800x567]

Well, sure, but that's just because you don't have blacks to draw around.


Nailed it
 
2014-07-19 09:13:07 PM  

Trapped: Remember kids, it's only wrong when Republicans do it.


If you can project all your personal failings on to "those others" then you never have to face the reality that you personally may be an awful person.

To put a finer point on it: Not everyone thinks that something is wrong by the very fact that it is done by some group of people. It is possible that it is wrong if any group of people do it.

So, would you be prepared to say this is unequivocally wrong and the Republicans who did this are unamerican and hurt our democracy?
 
2014-07-19 09:16:22 PM  

GentDirkly: I like the cut of you jib, but I do think there is an idea l number for it. Something more than 5, but probably less than 10. 27 is not that number. The first time that the system was used, a handful of people would be so popular statewide that they may have 10x as many votes as the 27th place candidate, who would equally get a seat. These very popular candidates would have to find ways to focus their efforts and spread their popularity to others that agree with them. It would be messy. Finally, you're giving the voter a very long ballot with over 50 names on it and asking them to choose one. It may be difficult for voters to find the candidate they want. It may be difficult for them to feel secure in their decision. This is the reason your grocer stocks 3 brands of pasta, not 20.


The grocer only stocks three brands because he has limited shelf space. The ballots can be as big as necessary; people will be more likely to know ahead of time who they're voting for once they get used to it. But if you feel it's a valid issue, split some of the bigger states like Florida, Texas, New York, and California into districts with 10 or so Representatives.

I currently reside in TN, where there are 9 representatives. In 2012, Mitt Romney got 59% of the vote to Barack Obama's 39%. You would think that an accurate representation of the population would be 3 Dem, 6 Republican, or 4 Dem, 5 Republican. Instead there are 2 Democrats and 7 Republicans, and it's not even gerrymandered that badly. 9 Representatives would be optimal in my opinion; the ballot would likely have about 20-25 names of people who could get enough signatures.

I think what you brought up about very popular Representatives getting huge numbers of votes is actually a good thing, not a bad thing. People will feel confident that that person will win again and instead vote for someone like them in order to get double the representation. Large organizations that currently wield tremendous political power will have to decide if they wish to run two candidates instead of one, and risk neither being elected as people look to a candidate that better represents their individual interests rather than the aggregate political goals of the organization.

The other upside is that political parties will have less control over the political process. Coalitions must form in order to accomplish major legislation or even elect a Speaker. The Tea Party can split off from the Republican Party, which will make both far happier, yet marginalized. Dems can remain a centrist party, while the real liberals can branch off and form their own organization. Swing voters will still be more likely to swing towards the tallest guy or the one with the biggest billboard, but the real politically active people will be less likely to "settle" for someone. Voter participation will likely increase because it will take so few votes to put the 9th-place candidate into office - and that person will know they barely skimmed by and they will be far more likely to respond to the people that elected them.
 
2014-07-19 09:22:08 PM  

Kittypie070: Hey, tell us the one about how we're a

plutocracy republic, not a democracy! That's always good for a diversion!

Fixed that for you.
 
2014-07-19 09:22:23 PM  

Kittypie070: officeday: Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....

Absolutely.

After the shiat your party has pulled on everyone around the entire world in the past 14 years...


I was only in MD for a year, but the Dems there are pretty bad....I do agree though that the GOP deserves whatever it gets
 
2014-07-19 09:39:09 PM  

GentDirkly: The first time that the system was used, a handful of people would be so popular statewide that they may have 10x as many votes as the 27th place candidate, who would equally get a seat.


Three words: Representative Vermin Supreme.

welovecult.s3.amazonaws.com

 
2014-07-19 09:40:00 PM  
This "War on women" I have heard about must be working.
 
2014-07-19 09:50:24 PM  

officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


I'm against gerrymandering anywhere even where it benefits the DNC.
 
2014-07-19 09:52:53 PM  

Smackledorfer: The Name: sendtodave: You know what would solve all of this?

Philosopher kings.

In all seriousness, some states would probably actually fare better if they were run by a benevolent-enough dictator.  Recent history has shown us that some places (I'm looking at you, Kansas, Florida and North Carolina) are on average just too stupid to make decisions for themselves through the democratic process.

Everything runs better under a benevolent dictator.

Pretty tough finding one and keeping them that way.


Please have pity for those of us here in North Cackalacky. We are but prey for the beady eyed employee of the nation's largest utility...
 
2014-07-19 10:12:24 PM  

smellysocksnshoes: How about when you are elected you turn over 75% of your wealth (including real property) and once your term in office is done you can never mention politics or your role in govt (no books no movies no interviews) on get your wealth and property back in 10% segments annually after another year of STFU


Anyone who could actually do the job would never volunteer.
Joe Schmuckatelli from the middle class couldn't afford to turn over that much of what they have, and Jane Poorwoman doesn't have anything to turn over - and is most likely not educated enough to handle the position. Wellington Richguy ain't turning over 75% of JACK only get get it back in drips later, and is not going to give up a chance to make even more money after their term ends.

Not gonna happen. Money drives politics, and without money there is no politics.
 
2014-07-19 10:25:31 PM  

officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


I may be new to this game, but isn't this a strawman argument?
 
2014-07-19 10:44:02 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....

I may be new to this game, but isn't this a strawman argument?


But, but, butt... Reality is paradoxical. How else does one explain that, while there is nothing new under the sun, on the other hand time changes everything?
 
MFK
2014-07-19 10:44:45 PM  

officeday: mrshowrules: Gerrymandering takes a long time.  A fair redistricting takes no time at all.  You could fairly redistrict a State in about an hour using the shortest split linealgorithm.

Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


Yeah yeah... Maryland and Illinois are gerrymandered blue states. Let's be sure to put those two states against the 30 gerrymandered red states to show how both sides are exactly the same.
 
2014-07-19 10:45:26 PM  

Doc Daneeka: The gerrymandering is a travesty, yes, but this is what they get for sending a GOP majority to the statehouse in the first place.  What did they think was going to happen?

Maybe next time Florida voters will have more sense.


Last election, I helped a lot of my friends register, but I warned them to register either Independent or Republican. Some did, but most registered Dem. Incidentally, all of my friends who were registered I or R had no problems voting on election day, but three of my friends who registered D had trouble. Two were turned away. My roommate, for example, never receive his voter registration card, and was denied - flat out denied by the woman working there - a provisional ballot at the polling station. As he had never voted in any previous election, and was kind of annoyed at having waited like 3 or 4 hours in line, he did not know or did not care that was wrong and went home without having voted. I, a registered Republican (because someone with some sense should vote in the Republican primaries here), had absolutely no problems come election day (still voted Dem on election day, though). My roommate received his voter's registration card 3 months after the election. The incident infuriated myself and a lot of my friends, even our staunch conservative Republican friend, that we couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of the situation, and to vent we wrote in "[Roommate's name]'s voter registration" as one of the blank card in Cards Against Humanity. It tends to be a trump card if he's judging certain cards like "Why can't I sleep at night?" Similarly, a friend of mine, who also registered Dem and had never voted before, was denied a ballot at her polling station and told to go home or else they would call the police on her trying to vote illegally. She was 18 at the time, that scared her, and off she went to avoid a run in with police. Sadly, neither of them could be assed to care enough to pursue the matter in any legal capacity, which I can kind of understand (both working full-time, both are full-time students, both broke) but at the same time... *sigh* c'est la vie.

So, some of it, sure, has to do with Florida voters being asshats. Some of it, however, may have to do with bullsh*t tactics by Republicans to prevent registered Democrats from voting in elections. This year, my roommate changed his party affiliation and, lo and behold, we both received our voter cards on the same day a few weeks ago. Not sure about my other friends, but some of them seem less enthusiastic about mid-terms; a position I'm trying desperately to reverse.

In fact, given the sheer volume and diversity of tactics pushed by Republicans over the last several years to try and prevent certain groups of people, who typically vote for Democrats, from voting, I am surprised at the number of people who assume Republican governors or Republican-controlled state legislatures are fairly voted in. I'd put good money on that being true less than half the time.
 
2014-07-19 10:51:54 PM  
CSB*: My father was a returning officer in the last Alberta election. They're hired by the government, not a party, and their job is simply to get a census of eligible voters in their assigned region and break it up into voting districts with a reasonably equal distribution of people. The work is overseen/checked/whatever by some kind of independent government committee in case they try to bias the result.

Why on earth would you let the party in charge draw the districts themselves? What person, at any point, ever thought that was a good idea? Might as well let my dog decide which shelf to keep the peanut butter and whether or not to leave the cupboard open.

*well, as C as a CSB can be in the Politics tab...
 
MFK
2014-07-19 10:56:09 PM  

Kome: Doc Daneeka: The gerrymandering is a travesty, yes, but this is what they get for sending a GOP majority to the statehouse in the first place.  What did they think was going to happen?

Maybe next time Florida voters will have more sense.

Last election, I helped a lot of my friends register, but I warned them to register either Independent or Republican. Some did, but most registered Dem. Incidentally, all of my friends who were registered I or R had no problems voting on election day, but three of my friends who registered D had trouble. Two were turned away. My roommate, for example, never receive his voter registration card, and was denied - flat out denied by the woman working there - a provisional ballot at the polling station. As he had never voted in any previous election, and was kind of annoyed at having waited like 3 or 4 hours in line, he did not know or did not care that was wrong and went home without having voted. I, a registered Republican (because someone with some sense should vote in the Republican primaries here), had absolutely no problems come election day (still voted Dem on election day, though). My roommate received his voter's registration card 3 months after the election. The incident infuriated myself and a lot of my friends, even our staunch conservative Republican friend, that we couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of the situation, and to vent we wrote in "[Roommate's name]'s voter registration" as one of the blank card in Cards Against Humanity. It tends to be a trump card if he's judging certain cards like "Why can't I sleep at night?" Similarly, a friend of mine, who also registered Dem and had never voted before, was denied a ballot at her polling station and told to go home or else they would call the police on her trying to vote illegally. She was 18 at the time, that scared her, and off she went to avoid a run in with police. Sadly, neither of them could be assed to care enough to pursue the matter in any legal capacity, which I can kind of understand (both working full-time, both are full-time students, both broke) but at the same time... *sigh* c'est la vie.

So, some of it, sure, has to do with Florida voters being asshats. Some of it, however, may have to do with bullsh*t tactics by Republicans to prevent registered Democrats from voting in elections. This year, my roommate changed his party affiliation and, lo and behold, we both received our voter cards on the same day a few weeks ago. Not sure about my other friends, but some of them seem less enthusiastic about mid-terms; a position I'm trying desperately to reverse.

In fact, given the sheer volume and diversity of tactics pushed by Republicans over the last several years to try and prevent certain groups of people, who typically vote for Democrats, from voting, I am surprised at the number of people who assume Republican governors or Republican-controlled state legislatures are fairly voted in. I'd put good money on that being true less than half the time.


Are you farking serious? Is this common knowledge in Florida??
 
2014-07-19 11:39:53 PM  

ox45tallboy: Why does the False Creek district get that little wedge of water that extends so far out into the inlet? Are there houseboats out there or something?


That's where the harbour float planes land and the Seabus ferries commuter passengers back and forth to the North Shore. Houseboats are more of False Creek thing.

I think it may be to disenfranchise the Otters who try to vote Green Party in the election.
 
2014-07-19 11:48:03 PM  
America needs an army of soldiers to guard against enemies foreign, and an army of Sam Vimeses to defend against enemies domestic.
 
2014-07-20 12:01:07 AM  

lilbjorn: There's a computer program now that can draw them in a few seconds, once the data is entered.  And it will be unbiased.

This should be required for all states.

 
2014-07-20 12:05:49 AM  

fatassbastard: This should be required for all states.


US law leaves the details of voting to states.

You will be shocked, shocked to hear that conservatives in pro-secession and pro-slavery states work very hard to disenfranchise black voters.
 
2014-07-20 12:07:30 AM  

jaytkay: fatassbastard: This should be required for all states.

US law leaves the details of voting to states.

You will be shocked, shocked to hear that conservatives in pro-secession and pro-slavery states work very hard to disenfranchise black voters.


Can we stop pretending states' rights still matter as much as they did back in the 18th or 19th centuries? Back then, traveling cross-country took weeks or months. Today, it's a matter of hours or days.
 
2014-07-20 12:08:03 AM  
Like gerrymandering is a partisan issue. Both sides indulge in this when they're in power. It would be very simple to come up with a model that divides voting districts on a very objective basis, but neither party would ever go for it as too many of their seats would be put in jeopardy.

Wait though, this is the Fark Political tab, so Republitards bad and Dems have never done this.
 
2014-07-20 12:17:28 AM  

officeday: Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. Gerrymandering is not isolated to Repubs, it occurs whenever and wherever there is a lack of a serious opposing party. Believe me, as a repub in MD, the Dems have been pulling this shiat for decades....But since this is FARK, I'm sure you're fine with that....


I'm a liberal in rural Indiana. I'm apathetic about guns, I'm not Christian, I don't sympathize with farmers, and I think social issues are a giant waste of time.

If you want to play "woe is me", I can play that too.
 
2014-07-20 01:11:12 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Like gerrymandering is a partisan issue. Both sides indulge in this when they're in power. It would be very simple to come up with a model that divides voting districts on a very objective basis, but neither party would ever go for it as too many of their seats would be put in jeopardy.

Wait though, this is the Fark Political tab, so Republitards bad and Dems have never done this.


Ah the old saw, "both sides are bad - so vote Republican".

Sorry buddy, but I prefer a no rape/no hate platform.
 
2014-07-20 01:35:22 AM  
Similarly, a friend of mine, who also registered Dem and had never voted before, was denied a ballot at her polling station and told to go home or else they would call the police on her trying to vote illegally

And that's where kitty gets stabby.

Now let's rephrase this:

Similarly, a friend of mine, who also registered GOP and had never voted before, was denied a ballot at her polling station and told to go home or else they would call the police on her trying to vote illegally

And kitty gets stabby again.

Don't ever EVER f*ck with people when they want to goddamn vote, I don't give a fart in the Sahara if they're a member of the American Communist Party or they're voting for Richard Sh*t Nixon as a write in.
 
2014-07-20 03:02:08 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Like gerrymandering is a partisan issue. Both sides indulge in this when they're in power. It would be very simple to come up with a model that divides voting districts on a very objective basis, but neither party would ever go for it as too many of their seats would be put in jeopardy.

Wait though, this is the Fark Political tab, so Republitards bad and Dems have never done this.


No, you're correct. Dems have done it a few times.
Which is like saying jaywalking and drunk driving can cause lethal vehicular accidents.
 
2014-07-20 03:18:33 AM  

ox45tallboy: mod_reright: lilbjorn: There's a computer program now that can draw them in a few seconds, once the data is entered.  And it will be unbiased.  This should be required for all states.

No, it shouldn't.  It should be part of the process, maybe, but there should also be human input.  Such a system can disenfranchise groups of people.  There are non-gerrymandering reasons for redistricting.

I believe the way to do it is make all Representatives elected from the state's population at large. For instance, Florida has 27 Representatives. On election day, everyone votes for the candidate they think represents them the best, and you take the top 27 vote-getters. In this manner, ANY group of people that can churn up enough support for their cause gets a representative in Congress. Whether that's the teachers' union, the corporate bigwigs, the factory workers, the fast-food workers, even the unemployed people can get their own rep if there's enough of them.

This would solve several problems at once, not the least of which is gerrymandering. It also enables any minority group with vested interests to have a pretty good shot at getting their own rep regardless of the proximity of their homes. Sure, candidates have to have a statewide campaign, but that's not as bad as what you might think - most people are going to vote for someone relating to their job, their church, or a particular issue they feel strongly about, so they'd likely find out easily which candidate best fits their interests. Racial minorities making only single-digit percentages of the population could easily get representation in this manner.

The candidates are supposed to represent the people. Back in the olden days they were chosen to represent people on a geographical basis for practical reasons, most of which don't apply anymore. The atheist stockbroker who lives in a million dollar mansion probably doesn't have the same interests as the christian factory worker who lives in a trailer park a few miles aw ...


Great idea, but I'm not sure how it'd work in my state (Washington). A mountain range pretty much divides it into two domains. The eastern portion is twice the size of the western portion in area, but has only one-third the population. The Seattle side (the west side) would have enough of a population advantage to elect all the representatives . . . leaving the east side being taxed without representation. (Wasn't there a war about that once?)

I believe you (like me) are a city person, but you haven't taken into account the sparsely populated agricultural areas that most states have. Their needs and wants rarely coincide with the wants and needs of us city slickers.
 
2014-07-20 03:34:24 AM  

HammerHeadSnark: I believe you (like me) are a city person, but you haven't taken into account the sparsely populated agricultural areas that most states have. Their needs and wants rarely coincide with the wants and needs of us city slickers.


in some respects, I get that, but in others...I just really don't give a shiat anymore.

I've lived in the rural-est of rural, I've lived in urban centers, and now I live in surburbia...and in every instance, no matter how you atomize the situation, there was always competing interest present.

in other words, within any geographical designation, you can arbitrarily place a line and say 'people on this side are different from the ones on the other' - be it a state, a county, or a township.
 
2014-07-20 03:57:35 AM  

HammerHeadSnark: Great idea, but I'm not sure how it'd work in my state (Washington). A mountain range pretty much divides it into two domains. The eastern portion is twice the size of the western portion in area, but has only one-third the population. The Seattle side (the west side) would have enough of a population advantage to elect all the representatives . . . leaving the east side being taxed without representation. (Wasn't there a war about that once?)

I believe you (like me) are a city person, but you haven't taken into account the sparsely populated agricultural areas that most states have. Their needs and wants rarely coincide with the wants and needs of us city slickers.


I'm normally a city person, but I'm definitely living in a rural area at the moment. However, that doesn't matter in this thought experiment.

Situations like Washington State are exactly what my idea would address - ANY subset of the population can have a Representative - and the people will divide themselves the most efficient way possible. Right now, we depend on geographical division, but there is simply no practical reason why the division cannot be according to one's occupation, one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or one's desire for a specific piece of legislation.

Washington state has 10 Reps. While I'm sure that there is some overlap of interests, under the system I have in mind the Eastern half (with 1/3 of the population) has every bit of the ability to elect a Rep as half of the Western half. You vote for whatever Rep best represents your interests, instead of voting for whichever of your two choices that you feel is less evil. Keep the same qualifying petitions, and you'll likely only have about 25 people on the ballot. You could do like India and let each candidate choose a symbol and put those symbols on the ballot next to each candidate's name if you wanted it simpler.

For example, if one person wants to sell themselves as a Tea Party type, they can get votes from the huge numbers of Conservatives in the Eastern half, and might even pick up a few from the Western half. That's the whole idea - if all of the candidates are campaigning only in the Western half of the state, they're missing out on 1/3 of the votes, making it easy for a candidate to pick up a seat by campaigning in the Eastern half. With 10 winners in the election, you at most need 10% of the whole vote to be guaranteed a seat, but the 10th place candidate will likely be closer to 2 or 3 percent or even lower.

In this way, the Western half simply cannot choose all of the candidates. The Eastern half, with 34% of the population, has more than enough votes to get at least 3, if not 4 reps. And those reps won't be representing an area, they'll be representing only their voters - far better than the system we have in place now where a candidate is almost invariably representing hundreds of thousands of people who preferred someone else's platform.

With this system, you would likely wind up with less than 5% of the population who did not vote for their Representative. Compare that to the current situation when it is normal for 45% or more people in a district to be represented by someone they did not vote for and you'll see the advantages.
 
2014-07-20 04:02:31 AM  

heap: in other words, within any geographical designation, you can arbitrarily place a line and say 'people on this side are different from the ones on the other' - be it a state, a county, or a township.


A couple of hundred years ago it made sense to make the divisions geographical in nature. Nowadays, especially considering mass communication and easy travel, it's kind of silly. There are far better criteria from which to determine who should represent you than whether or not that person normally resides within a day's travel by horse.

Do away with the districting lines altogether and gerrymandering will cease to exist.
 
2014-07-20 04:29:17 AM  

heap: in some respects, I get that, but in others...I just really don't give a shiat anymore.

I've lived in the rural-est of rural, I've lived in urban centers, and now I live in surburbia...and in every instance, no matter how you atomize the situation, there was always competing interest present.

in other words, within any geographical designation, you can arbitrarily place a line and say 'people on this side are different from the ones on the other' - be it a state, a county, or a township.


Well, I've lived a bit in the rural realms, but most of my life has been in the city. I do, however, have shirttail relatives still on the farm and their crying about how we city folk don't understand their problems and (I guess) we don't appreciate the tremendous sacrifices they make to ensure we have chicken, milk, and hops for beer.

All that being said, I too, weary of all the whining.
 
2014-07-20 04:37:26 AM  

ox45tallboy: Washington state has 10 Reps. While I'm sure that there is some overlap of interests, under the system I have in mind the Eastern half (with 1/3 of the population) has every bit of the ability to elect a Rep as half of the Western half. You vote for whatever Rep best represents your interests, instead of voting for whichever of your two choices that you feel is less evil. Keep the same qualifying petitions, and you'll likely only have about 25 people on the ballot. You could do like India and let each candidate choose a symbol and put those symbols on the ballot next to each candidate's name if you wanted it simpler.

For example, if one person wants to sell themselves as a Tea Party type, they can get votes from the huge numbers of Conservatives in the Eastern half, and might even pick up a few from the Western half. That's the whole idea - if all of the candidates are campaigning only in the Western half of the state, they're missing out on 1/3 of the votes, making it easy for a candidate to pick up a seat by campaigning in the Eastern half. With 10 winners in the election, you at most need 10% of the whole vote to be guaranteed a seat, but the 10th place candidate will likely be closer to 2 or 3 percent or even lower.


Okay, I get it now. I suspect my understanding of your original statement was lacking. I now see how this could work . . . if it weren't for them damned incumbents standing in the way of innovation.

Your response to me was well-reasoned and unexpected. Thanks for taking the time.
 
2014-07-20 04:40:42 AM  

HammerHeadSnark: Well, I've lived a bit in the rural realms, but most of my life has been in the city. I do, however, have shirttail relatives still on the farm and their crying about how we city folk don't understand their problems and (I guess) we don't appreciate the tremendous sacrifices they make to ensure we have chicken, milk, and hops for beer.


again, you'll find the same 'but they don't represent me!' divisions within a neighborhood.

it's just become one of those 'I fully understand your complaint, I just don't care' kinda things for me.
 
2014-07-20 04:48:47 AM  

HammerHeadSnark: Your response to me was well-reasoned and unexpected. Thanks for taking the time.


Have a month of TF.
 
2014-07-20 04:56:57 AM  

ox45tallboy: HammerHeadSnark: Your response to me was well-reasoned and unexpected. Thanks for taking the time.

Have a month of TF.


Well, that was unexpected. Did you know that a shortage of sheep in New Zealand has push up prices of wool 11% in just three months? I'm doing my part to bring prices down by refusing to eat mutton.

Thanks for the TF.
 
2014-07-20 05:06:05 AM  
If only there were some sort of ....electroic network that people could go to and print a new ballot from, and then send it in........
 
2014-07-20 05:15:06 AM  

Destructor: TheSopwithTurtle: Here's a better one. Anyone can run for election. Unlimited spending, unlimited airtime, no ballot access laws. However there's a "none of the above" option on the ballot. If that option wins over 1% of the vote, all the candidates are thrown to the alligators, and the new rep is picked at random from everyone who voted "none of the above."

I'm thinking a few more of these variants, and we have a whole new bunch of items for "The Wheel Of Failure"... An extra item to add more excitement to...

The Congressional Games.
One way or another...
...they will serve the people.

(Rated R/D: Partisan Politics, Strong language,
Violence. Lots of violence.)


Ah yes, and the early stages, wherein the candidates first try to get on the ballot?  We can follow each of them individually, and call it The Running Man.
 
2014-07-20 06:16:33 AM  
The Real Fark here is that this GOP redistricting...just ruled unconstitutional by a judge...cost the GOP 2 seats to the Democrats...and allowed NutJob WhackJob Alan Grayson to be re-elected back to the House
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report