[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-October-16, 18:15, said:

Drews, I know that you're not too bright, so let me try to make this as simple as possible:

Apartheid South Africa was a "democracy".
It denied the right to vote to 90% of its population.
But it was a "democracy".
For whats that worth.

So are you saying that democracy, as implemented in the USA, is not good? I guess I am not bright because I don't get your point at all. Are you just saying that you don't like the outcomes of some forms of democracy? Or that democracies like SA don't meet with your approval? Could you be more explicit about what your point is?

[PrecisionL]

Actually the USA is a Representative Republic, not a democracy (where the majority always rules).

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

[ldrews]

PrecisionL, on 2018-October-16, 19:38, said:

Actually the USA is a Representative Republic, not a democracy (where the majority always rules).

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.

Yes, you are correct. I was being sloppy.

[johnu]

Republicans Are Still Rewriting History On Pre-Existing Conditions

It's not just Dennison who is a pathological liar.

From the article,

“I voted to protect people with pre-existing conditions,” McSally said. “We cannot go back to where we were before Obamacare, where people were one diagnosis away from going bankrupt, because they could not get access to health care.”

This is from a Republican who repeatedly voted to repeal and cripple the Affordable Care Act brokered by Obama which is the only reason insurance companies are prohibited from kicking people with pre-existing conditions off their insurance. How stupid do Republicans think the American public is? To the extent that anybody believes Republicans on healthcare, apparently pretty stupid.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-October-16, 18:41, said:

So are you saying that democracy, as implemented in the USA, is not good? I guess I am not bright because I don't get your point at all. Are you just saying that you don't like the outcomes of some forms of democracy? Or that democracies like SA don't meet with your approval? Could you be more explicit about what your point is?

1. "Being a democracy" is not at all equivalent to being a just, fair, or even decent society

2. From its foundation, the United States was based on disenfranchising blacks, women, non property owners

3. The United States has improved its record with respect to voting, but that we still have a very long way to go

4. The Republican party actively practices voter suppression.

5. The people of the United States need to decide whether this type of chicanery is permissible. (I hope that we decide it should not. By which I mean that I want to see the franchise fully and fairly extended to all citizens. I also believe that issues surrounding voting need to be federalized)

6. If things like voting suppression, gerrymandering, and the like is determined to the fair game, then be aware that I am a vindictive bastard. And when the worm turns, I hope that the full power of the Federal government gets used to destroy you and yours, such that you never darken our doors again because bastards like you can not be safely trusted to remain within the body politic.

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2018-October-16, 21:18, said:

6. If things like voting suppression, gerrymandering, and the like is determined to the fair game, then be aware that I am a vindictive bastard. And when the worm turns, I hope that the full power of the Federal government gets used to destroy you and yours, such that you never darken our doors again because bastards like you can not be safely trusted to remain within the body politic.

Hillarious

Get help

[y66]

johnu, on 2018-October-16, 19:46, said:

Republicans Are Still Rewriting History On Pre-Existing Conditions

It's not just Dennison who is a pathological liar.

From the article,

“I voted to protect people with pre-existing conditions,” McSally said. “We cannot go back to where we were before Obamacare, where people were one diagnosis away from going bankrupt, because they could not get access to health care.”

This is from a Republican who repeatedly voted to repeal and cripple the Affordable Care Act brokered by Obama which is the only reason insurance companies are prohibited from kicking people with pre-existing conditions off their insurance. How stupid do Republicans think the American public is? To the extent that anybody believes Republicans on healthcare, apparently pretty stupid.

538 puts McSally's chances of winning at 3 in 8. Let's hope this pans out and that McSally will soon be wiping her weeping lying eyes.

[y66]

Here's Nate Silver expanding on a point that awm and others have made about the senate races: Why The House And Senate Are Moving In Opposite Directions

Excerpt:

Quote

On the surface, you might reason that House and Senate battlegrounds aren’t that different from one another. Yes, the most competitive Senate races this year are in really, really red states. Specifically, the average competitive Senate race, weighted by its likelihood of being the decisive state in determining the majority according to FiveThirtyEight’s tipping-point index, is 16 percentage points more Republican than the country overall.1 But the average competitive House district is also pretty red: 8 points more Republican than the country overall, weighted by its tipping-point probability.

The more time you spend looking at the battlegrounds in each chamber, however, the more you’ll come to two important conclusions:

• The House and Senate battlegrounds really aren’t that much alike. In several important respects, in fact, they’re almost opposite from one another. For example, House battlegrounds are more educated than the country overall, while Senate ones are less so.
  
• The Democrats’ map in the House is fairly robust, because they aren’t overly reliant on any one type of district. (This stands in contrast to the Senate, where most of the battlegrounds fit into a certain typology: red and rural). While House battlegrounds are somewhat whiter, more suburban and more educated than the country overall, there are quite a few exceptions — enough so that Democrats could underperform in certain types of districts but still have reasonably good chances to win the House. This differs from Hillary Clinton’s position in the Electoral College in 2016, in which underperformance among just one group of voters in one region — white working-class voters in the Midwest — was enough to cost her the election.

I’ve defined high-education districts as those where at least 35 percent of the adult population has a bachelor’s degree. By that measure, 28 percent of congressional districts in the country overall are highly-educated. But 37 percent of the House battleground districts are highly-educated. By contrast, only 13 percent of the districts that are most important to Senate control have high education levels.

Racially, both House and Senate battlegrounds are whiter than the country as a whole, but the skew is worse in the Senate: 38 percent of districts most important to Senate control are at least 80 percent non-Hispanic white, compared to just 23 percent of districts in the country overall.

Lastly, competitive House districts are concentrated in the suburbs and exurbs (defined based on population density), which make up about half of congressional districts overall but closer to two-thirds of competitive ones in the House. Suburban and exurban districts are quite unimportant to the Senate, however, where the key races are disproportionately based on rural states or in states such as Nevada with a mix of urban and rural areas with little in between.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-October-17, 03:54, said:

Here's Nate Silver expanding on a point that awm and others have made about the senate races: Why The House And Senate Are Moving In Opposite Directions

Excerpt:

I browsed the whole article and some of the links within it. I see that Ben Cardin's chance of retaining his seat as (Dem) senator from Maryland is rated at better than 99 out of 100. Same odds with my congressman, Jamie Raskin. I hardly need to vote! Maybe I should move to some place where I am needed.

[ggwhiz]

kenberg, on 2018-October-17, 08:41, said:

I hardly need to vote! Maybe I should move to some place where I am needed.

Maybe organized vote swapping with somebody that wants to vote green would be a useful response to the GOP voter suppression nonsense. Fighting fire with fire just so they get their heads out of their ass and move towards meaningful reform.

I'm guessing that greens would not be swapping for red.

[kenberg]

ggwhiz, on 2018-October-17, 10:22, said:

Maybe organized vote swapping with somebody that wants to vote green would be a useful response to the GOP voter suppression nonsense. Fighting fire with fire just so they get their heads out of their ass and move towards meaningful reform.

I'm guessing that greens would not be swapping for red.

We probably need to stop talking like this or we will be cited as evidence of voter fraud conspiracy.

I probably need to find out who is running for the school board so I can maybe influence something. Actually the schools are working pretty well. What's a guy to do? There are a lot of signs up for some guy running for re-election as judge of the orphan's court, maybe I could look into his record. I'm not sure he actually has a challenger, the only signs I have seen are for him.

[johnu]

A white woman people have dubbed 'Golfcart Gail' called the police on a black man for cheering on his son during a soccer game

Bigot/racist Dennison has empowered other bigots and racists to come out of the closet and openly display their prejudices and hatred. Race relations continue to regress back to the 60's (it's debatable whether that is the 1960's, or the 1860's).

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2018-October-17, 13:28, said:

A white woman people have dubbed 'Golfcart Gail' called the police on a black man for cheering on his son during a soccer game

Bigot/racist Dennison has empowered other bigots and racists to come out of the closet and openly display their prejudices and hatred. Race relations continue to regress back to the 60's (it's debatable whether that is the 1960's, or the 1860's).

Don't sell them short - it is the 1760s.

Speaking of racists, Dennison is in the middle of showing his greatest flaw: the inablity to admit error and correct his path. The Great Decider Pumpkin deemed Saudi Arabia the Manhattan of the Middle East and Prince MBS a better dancer than Travolta in Saturday Night Live so how could such a skilled and flashy prince also be a calculating murderer? Maybe a rogue dance troupe somehow...who knows?

[Winstonm]

PrecisionL, on 2018-October-16, 19:38, said:

Actually the USA is a Representative Republic, not a democracy (where the majority always rules).

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

Penalty. Unnecessary yelling. 15 pages from the spot of the foul.

[hrothgar]

Amused to see the following (slightly more polite) version of my last post

https://www.vox.com/...0-supreme-court

Couple key quotes

Quote

“Remember: Democracy doesn’t mean majority rules. It means we all agree on the rules.” The problem right now is we don’t all agree the rules are fair, but the depth of that disagreement has made it impossible to imagine agreeing to other rules, either. And since we haven’t even tried to agree to the principles that are meant to guide our rules, every question, in every case, comes down to the raw exercise of power.

and

Quote

It is not difficult to imagine an America where Republicans consistently win the presidency despite rarely winning the popular vote, where they control both the House and the Senate despite rarely winning more votes than the Democrats, where their dominance of the Supreme Court is unquestioned, and where all this power is used to buttress a system of partisan gerrymandering and pro-corporate campaign finance laws and strict voter ID requirements and anti-union legislation that further weakens Democrats’ electoral performance.

If this seems outlandish, well, it simply describes the world we live in now, and assumes it continues forward. Look at North Carolina, where Republican legislators are trying to change the state Constitution to gain power over both elections and courts. Look at Wisconsin, where state Republicans gerrymandered the seats to make Democratic control a near impossibility. Look at Citizens United, which research finds gave Republicans a 5 percentage point boost in elections for state legislators. Look at Georgia, where the GOP candidate for governor currently serves as secretary of state and is executing a voter purge designed to help him win office.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-October-17, 16:13, said:

Amused to see the following (slightly more polite) version of my last post

https://www.vox.com/...0-supreme-court

Couple key quotes




and

In all of the examples cited the local voters voted in the Republicans which allowed for the gerrymandering and other assorted ills. So obviously, in some sense, the outcome reflects the will of the voting public in that state. How would you arrange that differently?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-October-17, 20:43, said:

In all of the examples cited the local voters voted in the Republicans which allowed for the gerrymandering and other assorted ills. So obviously, in some sense, the outcome reflects the will of the voting public in that state. How would you arrange that differently?

At the highest possible level, create a federal guarantee of the right to vote and strip responsibility for managing voting from the individual states.

If we're looking at the House of Representatives.

1. Implement the so-called Wyoming rule.

Choose the state with the smallest population.
Grant this state a single representative.
Other states get a round number of representatives based on this ratio.

With our current scheme, Montana with ~ one million inhabitants gets one representative while Rhode Islands 1,052,931 residents gets two)
There is still going to be rounding. Nothing in life is perfect. However, on average this will make things enormously better.

(FWIW, implementing this scheme would increase the number of House representatives to roughly 540)

2. Eliminate the combination of single member districts with first past the pole voting in favor of proportional representation.

Different political groups post a ranked slate of delegates
The more votes they get, the deeper into their slate they get to go

I am fairly indifferent whether or not this should be done on a state wide basis or, alternatively, individual states would create a small number of super districts.

Either way, this type of scheme would make todays gerrymandering schemes enormously more difficult and generated a much more balanced selection of candidates. (You'd see conservatives able to get elected in urban centers and liberals elected out in more rural areas, in each case, much more proportionate to their membership in the population)

When it comes to the Senate

1. Statehood for Washing DC and Puerto Rico

2. Slice California into between 5-7 new states. Happy to see the same done to Texas, New York, Florida, etc.

[hrothgar]

<I will be off vacationing in Barcelona for five days followed by a week in Marrakech>

Hoping not to have much time to post during the mornings and afternoon

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2018-October-17, 20:43, said:

In all of the examples cited the local voters voted in the Republicans which allowed for the gerrymandering and other assorted ills. So obviously, in some sense, the outcome reflects the will of the voting public in that state. How would you arrange that differently?

The "in some sense" is in what I see as a pretty weak sense. I am not so sure how to arrange things differently, but I will say a bit about the effects of how it is now. Here is a wikipedia inkk to the Maryland Congressional Districts.

https://en.wikipedia...ional_districts
Observe that there is one Republican representative, and seven Democratic representatives. The state leans heavily Dem, so we could say that "in some sense" this is the will of the people. But the sense gets bizarre.

The box on the lower left shows the current district boundaries. I live in the norther end of the blue thingy, my older daughter lives in the southern end. We are about an hour's drive from each other but the neighborhoods are very different. I can walk a short distance and see cows, my daughter could walk to the recently famous Holton Arms school (both her kids went to the very good public high school Walt Whitman). But this variation is nothing compared to the 1st district (Republican). This district starts a bit above me and wraps around the Chesapeake Bay to the politically conservative Eastern Shore. Probably a three hour drive, at least, from one end to the other, cows at one end, ocean beaches at the other. However many Republicans we might have in Maryland we are doing our damnest to put them all in one congressional district.

What's the effect? It's only a slight overstatement to say that the map has been drawn to save me the trouble of voting. A Dem will win in my district, a Rep will win in the 1st district. He has a Dem challenger, a pretty good one as I understand it,he is getting considerable support, but he is going down. As is the R candidate here. It hasn't always been this way, and I do not think that the change is for the better. Growing up in Minnesota some 60 years ago I recall, I think with some accuracy, that Rs and Ds competed for the vote and, in order to win, the party actually had to put up a good candidate. Although I admit that it did help to have a Scandinavian name such as Anderson.

[awm]

ldrews, on 2018-October-17, 20:43, said:

In all of the examples cited the local voters voted in the Republicans which allowed for the gerrymandering and other assorted ills. So obviously, in some sense, the outcome reflects the will of the voting public in that state. How would you arrange that differently?

Suppose you have a state like Ohio or North Carolina. It’s pretty evenly divided. Sometimes Rs get 52%, sometimes Ds get 52%. The swing can be because people are unhappy with the economy and vote against the current office holders, or there’s some crisis, or the governor has a scandal or whatever.

When people run they say they’ll cut taxes or improve the schools or fight crime or reduce housing costs or create jobs or whatever, and voters believe them or don’t. All quite normal.

The point is that no one is running saying “if I’m elected to legislature, I’ll make sure your vote doesn’t count any more and my party will always be in control even if you change your mind in 4 years or 8 years”...

So yes the voters picked the Rs because they thought taxes are too high or there’s too much crime or whatever. They believed though, that in 4 years there’d be another election where they could decide whether to keep the Rs or switch to Ds. But they were betrayed!

By gerrymandering the Rs (after getting their 52% of votes or so) redraw the maps to guarantee they will now only need 40% of votes to control the state! And while it’s common for the Ds to get 52%, and maybe there will be enough upset voters that the Ds even get 58%, there are enough die-hard always vote R folks out there that the Ds won’t get 61%.

So I guess the voters made a mistake when they gav the Rs 52%... but now everyone who lives in the state ought to pay for it forever? And keep in mind it wasn’t like the Rs promised to “end democracy forever” in their platform... it just worked out that way.