Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

delaney.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 180 posts

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#31

Post by marcell »

CalChris wrote: post #10

We have gerrymandering at every level, but first with the States. Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? We have 12% of the population of the US. Wyoming has 0.18%, smaller than DC. Of course, this continues with the House and the Electoral College. Et cetera. However, there is no incentive for Wyoming and ND and Alaska and ... to fix this. No Taxation Without Representation? Sure, but t…

This is going downvoted to oblivion but I think it's a fair point. The Senate / House divide made a lot of sense for 13 colonies, which were kind of like separate entities, but doesn't make as much sense now. For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California? If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.

I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before it is reformed in a fair way.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#32

Post by noobermin »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #20

This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped in his house by two blocks. http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...

I'm not sure how that is hilarious, it shows a little character in being willing to reign in a system that even got you into power.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #21
baron816 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. People act like the Constitution we have came down from the heavens in a beam of light. But it was written by a bunch of guys who had never lived in a real democracy before. In fact it was written at a time when there pretty much hadn't been ANY democracies in the whole world for two thousand years. We've had two hundred years of experience an…

> We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Constitution? > Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago. States could ,…

Seriously. The last Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation. It wrote a new system of government. If you don't like our elected leaders, understand that a constitutional convention means giving them, as a convention, absolute power to do anything.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#34

Post by CalChris »

jghn wrote: post #30
CalChris wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the House isn't proportional. There is a minimum of one House member per State: each State shall have at Least one Representative . At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.

Thus the "supposed to be". A better way to have phrased it would be quasi-proportional. I was suggesting that your beef really should be with the House.

The Senate represented the States. Senators until the 17th Amendment were appointed by State legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College with votes apportioned to the States. House members were popularly elected but only by white men; indeed the 1790 Naturalization Law said that only free white men could vote. Only 6% of the population could vote.

This is your original intent. This is your design.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#35

Post by xupybd »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #20

This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped in his house by two blocks. http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...

He had to play by the current rules of the game to get in. That doesn't mean he agreed with the rules.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#36

Post by SamReidHughes »

kerkeslager wrote: post #22

I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything. If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Ju…

That would still help whichever party benefits from such a procedure. We've had debates over what the "right" algorithm is before, in regard to calculating the number of House representatives each state gets.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#37

Post by mful »

kerkeslager wrote: post #22

I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything. If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Ju…

There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today.

Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the opposition, and disparage while in power.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#38

Post by IncRnd »

noobermin wrote: post #32
mobilefriendly wrote: post #20

This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped in his house by two blocks. http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...

I'm not sure how that is hilarious, it shows a little character in being willing to reign in a system that even got you into power.

It's more likely the other way around, showing very little character by using the rules of the game to his advantage to get into office and changing the rules of the game to stay in office.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#39

Post by paulddraper »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #20

This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped in his house by two blocks. http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...

Eh. I'm against state-sponsored gambling.

That didn't stop me from using tens of thousands from a lottery-funded state scholarship.

I favor sales tax over income tax, but I still pay income tax. That's just the way the world works. I play by the laws but endevour to improve them.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#40

Post by baddox »

ouid wrote: post #16
jghn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the point of the Senate. The House is supposed to be the proportional one.

You're misunderstanding, I think. It's not that it isn't by design. It's that the design principle is stupid.

I think you mean that you don't like the goal this design principle is intended to achieve.
Post reply on HN