I disagree because they gave the states control of the election and it was argued in the Federalist Papers. They understood well the ramifications of a "wrong" system.
"Every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.... a departure from so fundamental a principle, as a portion of imperfection in the system which may prove the seed of future weakness, and perhaps anarchy. It will not be alleged, that an election law could have been framed and inserted in the Constitution, which would have been always applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country; and it will therefore not be denied, that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded, that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter and ultimately in the former. ". - Alexander Hamilton
I think you underestimate the extent to which the Founders understood government and politics even if they didn't have the word 'gerrymandering'. You don't create a democratic system without understanding the potential risks of what happens in an election.
it's a threat to democracy
I disagree. We have a unique history of expanding the rights of the individual. We have trended toward more open and freer government even if there are instances of bad governance. There are ways around gerrymandering through gubernatorial elections to veto district maps (which apparently was the GOP strategy in 90's election to break the ~40 year hold of democrat power in legislatures and their gerrymandered districts, is what started CA to a non-partisan committee). You are closer to your local and state government which you are more apt to change. You have a tough job to justify such threats when the trend has been considerably favorable.
relatively recently that the parties have tried to basically weaponize it to an extreme degree
I disagree. Elections and redistricting have always been a messy. I might agree with a boom/bust type cycle for gerrymandering but "weaponizing" is not new. This is the same idea that the challenges we face today are some how novel and different from historical norms when in reality it's always been a challenge. Another example of this is communications and journalism. Human nature doesn't change because we can communicate faster and farther with yellow journalism just as elections are always contested and flawed in some way.
Gerrymandering to my mind is one of the greatest threats to our democracy
Again, I disagree. A nuisance and problem but not a threat or even one of the greatest threats to our democracy. Regardless that democracy was never the goal and was to be tempered by undemocratic means and in spite of gerrymandering we still have a functioning republic that has the unique history of expanding the rights of the individual. Because of the decentralized method in which we run our elections, this is an issue that must be handled by the people directly affected by this on a case by case basis. People in the west are not directly impacted by NC gerrymandering aside from the court opinion establishing a precedent to interpret the law.
A few examples of bigger threats IMO are the national debt and thinking that democracy is the end all be all of proper governance thereby making everything democratic (17th amendment did more harm then good).
Gerrymandering has been an issue since the start of the Republic. Even California has issues with it's redistricting. Great, they have an unelected commission to decide their districts. Which has been highly unfavorable to the GOP party even though it was initially promoted by the GOP in California. They risked their political power because they thought it a good idea. My initial point.
I am not convinced the democrats have solved the issue particularly so because you now can have a democrat run against a democrat. A real choice in the election!
I think the US has a great political system when compared to other Democracies but in this area, we are far behind. In many other systems, the gridlock we see would result in government disbandment and re-elections! That rarely happens because those parties figure out how to compromise and work things out.
The US is a lot more diverse than those you are comparing to. As those other countries become more diverse with ideas and people the more cracks we see. Elections are messy affairs. If there are problems, I don't think the answer should default to 're-election' as it seems so common in Europe. There is nothing stopping a state from adopting some solution for their elections (for the most part). Lead by example and risk your political power.
In all seriousness, I do hope that something like this will be implemented in its stead: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Whenever voting comes up the inevitable solution to 'fix' the elections follow. It maybe a great idea and the best idea ever to come up in civics and elections. You would go much further in convincing me that it's a great idea by implementing in your state. Elections are controlled by state and local governments and leading by example is a better way to prove your idea is good. I don't care what other countries do, they have no political stake in our elections and organize their elections according to their own needs. I want you to risk your political power to prove your idea works by actually practicing what you preach.
For example, if a proprietor in a predominantly gay district who specializes in erotic and gay themed cakes for gay weddings is approached by a Christian couple who want a verse of the bible inscribed on their cake, and he refuses, will the same fine be leveraged?
This sort of did happened in Colorado (though not a predominately gay district who specializes in erotic and gay themed cakes). A Christian couple wanted a cake baked with a few bible versus that denounced homosexuality. The baker refused lawsuits followed. The courts sided with the baker because "hate speech" (bible versus can be seen as hate speech now) and offensive.
Sure, but they are more homogeneous (in racial and ideological senses). If a European solution is the correct solution, a left state that thinks like Europe (there are many) should be able to properly implement it. That hasn't happened, why? A few try and it doesn't work, why?
lol, if he was so bad Obama should have ignored McConnell's recommendation. Or are you saying that Obama has no ability to choose and his successes and failures are not his own? Sounds kinda racist.
Is not false equivalency when it is the law to keep the commission bipartisan. Pai did exactly what Wheeler did. Just because you agree with one doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Congress should be the one to act.
Basically, because we have already passed laws to overcome those issues I have to trust in the courts and local populace to ensure that those things do not become a problem and individual instances be pointed out and corrected through the proper channels. I can look to my own district to work as a volunteer election staffer or help prosecute offenders but to other states I don't know enough about their laws, districts, or population to make any kind of decision or judgement from incomplete reporting online. That is what I mean, I cannot judge instances unless there is substantial evidence to sway opinions in the courts to decide on those individual circumstances.
If the federal laws are not equipped well enough then I would have to hear arguments of what needs to be changed and why. As it stands now the law protects against most types of discrimination (ideological is not protected as an example). Alabama may have a history of racism but they are also one of the few states that have all their elections overseen by the federal government. When is enough time passed for the local populace oversee their elections again in those states? I don't know and that is a question the courts are asked and increasingly so. If I look at patterns of voting across racial demographics it may give an incomplete picture to the reality based on the plethora of reasons why people vote or not. I cannot ascribe malice just because of history. If those patterns can highlight any breach in Federal election law or local election law then all the better. That's just my opinion on the matter.
: IMHO, service-providers must not be content-providers. That is all.
It's telecommunication service providers and information service providers are the classifications defined in the law. Problem is, lawyers can argue that ISPs are both which is why the law is in need of an update.
I'd put the printed word in between the two, but I got you.
In order of significance. Spoken word. Written word. Printed word. Electrically transmitted word. The internet is the succession of a long line of "most revolutionary method of communication used by humans". Each one the most revolutionary for the time. Each one dependent on the last.
Those 2015 regulations were not "Net Neutrality" but an attempt to classify ISPs under Title 2. What makes that classification anything like the Net Neutrality you speak of and why is Title 2 the solution? Net Neutrality is only necessary if you have a monopoly which ISPs do not have. Title 2 assumes service over one physical line but does not address 2 physical lines competing (DSL and cable compete which the FCC says most US households have "broadband" for). Competition is the answer and I am not sure how more regulations by reclassifying ISPs help that when it will increase the cost of entry into the market for new competitors.
government wants them to do with their money. If that means compete with business, then it's compete with business... why not make it a service like water or electricity.
To play devils advocate. How is it the right of the government to infringe on the rights of a business to compete? I can start a business and try to compete in a market but if I am competing against the government I will lose and my rights to commerce and property have functionally been restricted directly by the government for no obvious reason because ISPs are not a monopoly by legal definition. DSL competes with cable as an ISP. Should the government choose which technology is the most competitive technology? How will that allow for innovation in the market and allow for new competitors?
Water and electricity are utilities which means a private monopoly the government allows to exist with many additional regulations. You physically only need one waterline and it does not compete with your electrical line. Cable and phones lines DO compete.
Additionally, I can be 'anti-federal government' and be very libertarian toward any federal initiative but that does not mean I am against the local government from doing something. The point is, the people in CO voted to have this service and it is not my business so long as they are not forcing me to pay for it through federal taxes. I don't have to share in the risk that it may fail or the problems that may come about. I don't have to be concerned what happens in CO because they are doing it by themselves.
If it works and is a great model I can petition my local government to use their framework to get something similar where I live. It's a win-win. People in CO get what they want. I don't have to pay for it. If it's a great idea it can be used as a framework in other municipalities. If enough of the states are doing it, then a federal framework might be an acceptable choice to ensure that the different state and municipal 'solutions' play nice across state lines.
Convince me that your idea is good by leading by example. Another example is New York doing free college. Good no them and good luck. I am not convinced free college will work (particularly in small sates without Wallstreet subsidy) but them trying is many times better than any Bernie Sander federal initiative. If it works it will be hard to deny the reality of a working system. Do not immediately go to the federal government expecting me to buy into w/e passion aroused your petition to get votes in your district.
Are your 2 Congressmen Republicans? No? Then Mission Accomplished. Did you Senator approve the appointment of Pai when Obama nominated him? Then I guess you have some work to do to get that Senator out. What party are they?
Why should someone in Montana vote against their congressman? How has any of those 3 not represented their constituents needs and wants for this issue or other more important issues (as seen by their constituents)?
If your description is correct then maybe we shouldn't allow one individual to unilaterally make that decision. Not Pai and not Wheeler. Congress should've been the one to make that decision.
But politics is not about facts. You should know this. You can lie with facts. Just as you can tell the truth without facts.
For every fact I have a narrative. For every narrative I have a counter narrative. For every counter narrative I have a name to call you. People Agree With Me (TM). That is politics.
With regards to 1. Yes, it is a problem but I wouldn't ascribe malice to it because voting is a purely local controlled thing. Identify the specific problem (long lines, registration, etc) and address it without finger pointing at people who participate civically unless there is evidence to substantiate any claims of malice.
Part of the problem I think is that we have conflated the job of Congress and the federal government with local governance. The Federal government was never supposed to matter to the daily lives of everyone. It is really hard to change Congress to do something by design. What will work in the inner city Chicago may not work in Butte Montana. I think every Presidential election I have seen some idiot on the winning side saying something like: "All my problems are over! [insert_winner] will save the day for me and people like me!" When their local government is better able to address their individual concerns that they are better able to influence. It explains why voting participation is up during Presidential elections and way way down during other local elections.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a line between discussion and Trolling.
Yes, and he even agreed with google that some of the comments his discussions generated should not be tolerated.
was something the founders didn't forsee,
I disagree because they gave the states control of the election and it was argued in the Federalist Papers. They understood well the ramifications of a "wrong" system.
"Every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation. ... a departure from so fundamental a principle, as a portion of imperfection in the system which may prove the seed of future weakness, and perhaps anarchy. It will not be alleged, that an election law could have been framed and inserted in the Constitution, which would have been always applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country; and it will therefore not be denied, that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded, that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter and ultimately in the former. ". - Alexander Hamilton
I think you underestimate the extent to which the Founders understood government and politics even if they didn't have the word 'gerrymandering'. You don't create a democratic system without understanding the potential risks of what happens in an election.
it's a threat to democracy
I disagree. We have a unique history of expanding the rights of the individual. We have trended toward more open and freer government even if there are instances of bad governance. There are ways around gerrymandering through gubernatorial elections to veto district maps (which apparently was the GOP strategy in 90's election to break the ~40 year hold of democrat power in legislatures and their gerrymandered districts, is what started CA to a non-partisan committee). You are closer to your local and state government which you are more apt to change. You have a tough job to justify such threats when the trend has been considerably favorable.
You forgot AI!
relatively recently that the parties have tried to basically weaponize it to an extreme degree
I disagree. Elections and redistricting have always been a messy. I might agree with a boom/bust type cycle for gerrymandering but "weaponizing" is not new. This is the same idea that the challenges we face today are some how novel and different from historical norms when in reality it's always been a challenge. Another example of this is communications and journalism. Human nature doesn't change because we can communicate faster and farther with yellow journalism just as elections are always contested and flawed in some way.
Gerrymandering to my mind is one of the greatest threats to our democracy
Again, I disagree. A nuisance and problem but not a threat or even one of the greatest threats to our democracy. Regardless that democracy was never the goal and was to be tempered by undemocratic means and in spite of gerrymandering we still have a functioning republic that has the unique history of expanding the rights of the individual. Because of the decentralized method in which we run our elections, this is an issue that must be handled by the people directly affected by this on a case by case basis. People in the west are not directly impacted by NC gerrymandering aside from the court opinion establishing a precedent to interpret the law.
A few examples of bigger threats IMO are the national debt and thinking that democracy is the end all be all of proper governance thereby making everything democratic (17th amendment did more harm then good).
Expect... Like expecting Hillary to carry states Obama won?
Expectations have the problem of being wrong.
Late to the party? How far back do you think the issue of gerrymandering goes?
Gerrymandering has been an issue since the start of the Republic. Even California has issues with it's redistricting. Great, they have an unelected commission to decide their districts. Which has been highly unfavorable to the GOP party even though it was initially promoted by the GOP in California. They risked their political power because they thought it a good idea. My initial point.
I am not convinced the democrats have solved the issue particularly so because you now can have a democrat run against a democrat. A real choice in the election!
I think the US has a great political system when compared to other Democracies but in this area, we are far behind. In many other systems, the gridlock we see would result in government disbandment and re-elections! That rarely happens because those parties figure out how to compromise and work things out.
The US is a lot more diverse than those you are comparing to. As those other countries become more diverse with ideas and people the more cracks we see. Elections are messy affairs. If there are problems, I don't think the answer should default to 're-election' as it seems so common in Europe. There is nothing stopping a state from adopting some solution for their elections (for the most part). Lead by example and risk your political power.
Could be worse. They could have been mall cops.
Lead by example. Do it and tell us how it works.
In all seriousness, I do hope that something like this will be implemented in its stead:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Whenever voting comes up the inevitable solution to 'fix' the elections follow. It maybe a great idea and the best idea ever to come up in civics and elections. You would go much further in convincing me that it's a great idea by implementing in your state. Elections are controlled by state and local governments and leading by example is a better way to prove your idea is good. I don't care what other countries do, they have no political stake in our elections and organize their elections according to their own needs. I want you to risk your political power to prove your idea works by actually practicing what you preach.
For example, if a proprietor in a predominantly gay district who specializes in erotic and gay themed cakes for gay weddings is approached by a Christian couple who want a verse of the bible inscribed on their cake, and he refuses, will the same fine be leveraged?
This sort of did happened in Colorado (though not a predominately gay district who specializes in erotic and gay themed cakes). A Christian couple wanted a cake baked with a few bible versus that denounced homosexuality. The baker refused lawsuits followed. The courts sided with the baker because "hate speech" (bible versus can be seen as hate speech now) and offensive.
https://www.thedenverchannel.c...
Sure, but they are more homogeneous (in racial and ideological senses). If a European solution is the correct solution, a left state that thinks like Europe (there are many) should be able to properly implement it. That hasn't happened, why? A few try and it doesn't work, why?
lol, if he was so bad Obama should have ignored McConnell's recommendation. Or are you saying that Obama has no ability to choose and his successes and failures are not his own? Sounds kinda racist.
Is not false equivalency when it is the law to keep the commission bipartisan. Pai did exactly what Wheeler did. Just because you agree with one doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Congress should be the one to act.
Basically, because we have already passed laws to overcome those issues I have to trust in the courts and local populace to ensure that those things do not become a problem and individual instances be pointed out and corrected through the proper channels. I can look to my own district to work as a volunteer election staffer or help prosecute offenders but to other states I don't know enough about their laws, districts, or population to make any kind of decision or judgement from incomplete reporting online. That is what I mean, I cannot judge instances unless there is substantial evidence to sway opinions in the courts to decide on those individual circumstances.
If the federal laws are not equipped well enough then I would have to hear arguments of what needs to be changed and why. As it stands now the law protects against most types of discrimination (ideological is not protected as an example). Alabama may have a history of racism but they are also one of the few states that have all their elections overseen by the federal government. When is enough time passed for the local populace oversee their elections again in those states? I don't know and that is a question the courts are asked and increasingly so. If I look at patterns of voting across racial demographics it may give an incomplete picture to the reality based on the plethora of reasons why people vote or not. I cannot ascribe malice just because of history. If those patterns can highlight any breach in Federal election law or local election law then all the better. That's just my opinion on the matter.
Do you get upset when a Republican president is required to nominate a Democrat to the FCC?
: IMHO, service-providers must not be content-providers. That is all.
It's telecommunication service providers and information service providers are the classifications defined in the law. Problem is, lawyers can argue that ISPs are both which is why the law is in need of an update.
I'd put the printed word in between the two, but I got you.
In order of significance. Spoken word. Written word. Printed word. Electrically transmitted word. The internet is the succession of a long line of "most revolutionary method of communication used by humans". Each one the most revolutionary for the time. Each one dependent on the last.
Those 2015 regulations were not "Net Neutrality" but an attempt to classify ISPs under Title 2. What makes that classification anything like the Net Neutrality you speak of and why is Title 2 the solution? Net Neutrality is only necessary if you have a monopoly which ISPs do not have. Title 2 assumes service over one physical line but does not address 2 physical lines competing (DSL and cable compete which the FCC says most US households have "broadband" for). Competition is the answer and I am not sure how more regulations by reclassifying ISPs help that when it will increase the cost of entry into the market for new competitors.
, it's not like those mega corps care about free speech.
You mean all those pro-NN companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.
government wants them to do with their money. If that means compete with business, then it's compete with business... why not make it a service like water or electricity.
To play devils advocate. How is it the right of the government to infringe on the rights of a business to compete? I can start a business and try to compete in a market but if I am competing against the government I will lose and my rights to commerce and property have functionally been restricted directly by the government for no obvious reason because ISPs are not a monopoly by legal definition. DSL competes with cable as an ISP. Should the government choose which technology is the most competitive technology? How will that allow for innovation in the market and allow for new competitors?
Water and electricity are utilities which means a private monopoly the government allows to exist with many additional regulations. You physically only need one waterline and it does not compete with your electrical line. Cable and phones lines DO compete.
Additionally, I can be 'anti-federal government' and be very libertarian toward any federal initiative but that does not mean I am against the local government from doing something. The point is, the people in CO voted to have this service and it is not my business so long as they are not forcing me to pay for it through federal taxes. I don't have to share in the risk that it may fail or the problems that may come about. I don't have to be concerned what happens in CO because they are doing it by themselves.
If it works and is a great model I can petition my local government to use their framework to get something similar where I live. It's a win-win. People in CO get what they want. I don't have to pay for it. If it's a great idea it can be used as a framework in other municipalities. If enough of the states are doing it, then a federal framework might be an acceptable choice to ensure that the different state and municipal 'solutions' play nice across state lines.
Convince me that your idea is good by leading by example. Another example is New York doing free college. Good no them and good luck. I am not convinced free college will work (particularly in small sates without Wallstreet subsidy) but them trying is many times better than any Bernie Sander federal initiative. If it works it will be hard to deny the reality of a working system. Do not immediately go to the federal government expecting me to buy into w/e passion aroused your petition to get votes in your district.
Are your 2 Congressmen Republicans? No? Then Mission Accomplished. Did you Senator approve the appointment of Pai when Obama nominated him? Then I guess you have some work to do to get that Senator out. What party are they?
Why should someone in Montana vote against their congressman? How has any of those 3 not represented their constituents needs and wants for this issue or other more important issues (as seen by their constituents)?
If your description is correct then maybe we shouldn't allow one individual to unilaterally make that decision. Not Pai and not Wheeler. Congress should've been the one to make that decision.
But politics is not about facts. You should know this. You can lie with facts. Just as you can tell the truth without facts.
For every fact I have a narrative. For every narrative I have a counter narrative. For every counter narrative I have a name to call you. People Agree With Me (TM). That is politics.
With regards to 1. Yes, it is a problem but I wouldn't ascribe malice to it because voting is a purely local controlled thing. Identify the specific problem (long lines, registration, etc) and address it without finger pointing at people who participate civically unless there is evidence to substantiate any claims of malice.
Part of the problem I think is that we have conflated the job of Congress and the federal government with local governance. The Federal government was never supposed to matter to the daily lives of everyone. It is really hard to change Congress to do something by design. What will work in the inner city Chicago may not work in Butte Montana. I think every Presidential election I have seen some idiot on the winning side saying something like: "All my problems are over! [insert_winner] will save the day for me and people like me!" When their local government is better able to address their individual concerns that they are better able to influence. It explains why voting participation is up during Presidential elections and way way down during other local elections.
Cheers.