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

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#111

Post by CalChris »

IncRnd wrote: post #100
uncletaco wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a democracy, albeit a flawed one. The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers. Also, despite what the Senate was created to do, all Senators are now elected by citizens of their states. With the janky exception of the president you vote directly for rulers at every level of government.

>> The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers That's incorrect just looking at the definition of the word Democracy. Don't look at Google's definition of the word. Google almost always gets their definitions imprecise or incorrect. Look in a dictionary, either online or one that you have. You may also want to consider that you posted your comment on a page about gerrymandered e…

The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy thus [1]:

> 1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

> 1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy

> 1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members

> 1.3 The practice or principles of social equality

You are mistakenly assuming that the only form or meaning of democracy is direct democracy (1.2 above). That is not the case.

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#112

Post by curun1r »

davidnc wrote: post #62
mburns wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better question is why we have artificially capped our House of Representatives at 435 members. It has skewed the proportion of representation (and by extension, the electoral college) for decades. Even the UK has 650 members in their lower house.

Or, give each representative voting power proportional to the number of voters in their district. That way, no need for the added salary and chaos of 200+ more representatives, and you can get perfectly proportional representation.

I would prefer to give representatives spending power based on their district's taxes paid. It would solve a lot of long-standing squabbles...Republicans could put none of their constituents' taxes towards Planned Parenthood, the NEA and other liberal pet agencies and the Democrats could refuse to chip in towards military boondoggles and other Republican favorites.

Being able to look at a line item list of how your rep spent your Federal taxes might bring some much needed fiscal responsibility to government spending.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#113

Post by anarazel »

breatheoften wrote: post #57

How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party. That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.

> How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party.

That doesn't solve the issue that there's different directions within a party, and that the choice within a party has significant influence. In the US there's a lot of daylight between e.g. Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Tom Cotton, all republicans, and they're not along a one dimensional axis. Whether you have 52 Collinses or 52 Cottons, will yield drastically different policies.

> That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.

(context for non-germans) In Germany, the issue I raise is partially addressed by also by having one party vote and one direct vote for an individual. And the difference between directly elected members, and the popular vote is then made up by creating new seats, allocating seats from a ordered list provided by each party. EDIT: To clarify, normally 50% is directly elected, 50% by share. If and only if there's a party share difference between directly elected and indirectly elected seats, then new seats are created to make up for the difference.

But the problem with such a system is that the Party has a lot of directional power, by establishing the order on that list...

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#115

Post by anarazel »

nindalf wrote: post #83
breatheoften wrote: post #57

How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party. That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.

Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this. Also, the unintended consequence of such an electoral system is that it encourages extreme views, rather than moving towards the cent…

> Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this.

Yes. On a federal level everyone has two votes, the first is for a candidate, the second is for a party. The direct vote is for roughly equal sized districts, the second for a party. Normally half of the seats are allocated by first, half by second vote. If the directly elected seats yield a significantly enough party-line difference across a state (Germany is federally organized), additional indirectly elected seats are added to make up for the difference.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#116

Post by anarazel »

ccleve wrote: post #27
zeckalpha wrote: post #3

I feel like most of these changes would require a constitutional amendment.

Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on the political parties. See California Democratic Party vs. Jones: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.

I think you're right that this probably couldn't be done without an amendment, but I don't see how California Democratic Party vs. Jones actually is a strong argument for that. That seems to largely have been a first amendment case, if I understand the opinion correctly. The basic argument being that blanked primary systems forced parties to associate with candidates, which'd in turn be forced speech ("freedom of association").

Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#117

Post by jopsen »

nindalf wrote: post #83
breatheoften wrote: post #57

How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party. That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.

Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this. Also, the unintended consequence of such an electoral system is that it encourages extreme views, rather than moving towards the cent…

If the person you voted for isn't elected to Congress, and you have a "representative" from then other party... Do you then have a representative who will listen to you?

In the mixed systems like the German (well, most Western democracies) your vote helped elect someone from a party you choose.. even if it's not the person you personally voted for.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#118

Post by aptwebapps »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #51

I'm reading a lot of resignation, and I feel it too. Why is it than when SOPA came out or when health care is on the line, people rally super hard, but when election reform is out, there's almost no effort? Why can't we get passionate about this too?

SOPA was not a core issue for many members of Congress so it was possible to keep it from passing. Healthcare reform was a core issue for most Democrats, who had the majority at the time, so it was possible for them to pass something.

I don't think enough people are exercised about this issue for it to have much chance of going anywhere any time soon.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#119

Post by aptwebapps »

CalChris wrote: post #28
nerdponx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is by design. The whole point of the House is proportional representation. Recall that senators originally weren't even directly elected.

Gerrymandering is always by design.

But that's not gerrymandering. It's a different thing. Gerrymandering is specifically the process of drawing otherwise unthinkable district boundaries to achieve some particular electoral result.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#120

Post by TokenDiversity »

I know this is a digression but can somebody tell me what happened yesterday? Bear with me because I'm not much of a lawyer and I don't get a lot of time to do my original research so I just get it from TV.

I'm flabbergasted that the SC was 9-0 in their decision. I guess I just don't understand. I thought the lower courts had applied the ban unanimously and it was made in accordance with the law. Is there a way to challenge yesterday's decision further?

Post reply on HN