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

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#141

Post by mitchty »

marcell wrote: post #31
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 an…

> For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states?

Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican.

> If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice?

Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.

> Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?

Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High School.

> If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.

You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#142

Post by nindalf »

rayiner wrote: post #98
nindalf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You can see how proportional representation would help parties like the UKIP do far better than they otherwise would have, which is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation. In the long run, what's in the best interests of the nation is for the government to fairly represent as much of the electorate as possible, not a fictional "middle ground."

I agree with you in principle. But I also think in this particular case the UK has benefited from the UKIPs absence from Parliament.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#143

Post by nostrademons »

Clubber wrote: post #130
nostrademons wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's that effective these days. The American electorate just seems to expect that its leaders will be hypocrites and rewards them for it.

It absolutely is. One of the biggest arguments today about global warming is that since Al Gore lives in a mansion and rides in a personal jet, it's not real, because he personally isn't doing anything about it by moving(?) or flying commercial. You should read some right winger stuff now and again. It's another world.

The right also believes that Donald Trump is going to sock it to the wealthy coastal elites, despite being a billionaire real-estate developer from Manhattan, and espouses family values while electing a man who bragged about the size of his penis in a presidential debate.

(I could give plenty of instances of liberal hypocrisy too, but that isn't the subject at hand.)

I think a more accurate model is that people pick their tribe emotionally, and then "their guy" can do no wrong while "the other guy" is the devil incarnate. All manners of hypocrisy are forgiven in the process.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#144

Post by Aloha »

ouid wrote: post #61
Aloha wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the design flawed? We have house that is proportional representation, another that is fixed representation - theoretically the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of each state (which is why they used to be appointed by the Governor of that state) and the House is supposed to represent the people of the nation. Is this a bad idea?

People are the only ingredients of states. You don't add water or eggs. The state is equal to the formal sum of its people. Giving states with unequal populations equal representation is equivalent to giving its people disproportionate representation, which is a stupid idea.

Yes.

But the needs of a state as a whole may be significantly different than the needs of one congressional district within the state. Consider that historically the Senate has been a voice of moderation to an often much more radical house.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#145

Post by mozumder »

nindalf wrote: post #96
mozumder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is that something people haven't figured out?

The problem of watching the watchmen is an old one. Ideally you want to have watchmen who watch each other, like how the judiciary acts as a check on the executive and the legislature. However, the person I replied to was unhappy with the current state of affairs and proposed adding another watchman. So I wondered what their solution was.

How did other people solve it?

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#146

Post by rpenm »

jfoutz wrote: post #137
afpx wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the parent post hasn't been edited, it doesn't seem to say what you suggest it does (at least not by my reading). So, before we succumb to knee-jerk reactions that continue the political dysfunction, can we all just put our energy and minds toward solutions? Revenge politics (they did it, so we will to! get them back!) hurts.

Probably not, no. Tit for tat is optimal prisoners dilemma strategy.

Cooperation can be optimal for an infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma depending on prisoner's time preference (discount factor).

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#147

Post by DrScump »

marcell wrote: post #31
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 an…

  Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?
California had the same two Senators for twenty-four years. How many legislative accomplishments by either can you name without looking to up? (Heck, even with looking anything up?)

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#148

Post by noobermin »

devwastaken wrote: post #26
dvt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false. The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade. In many ways, it was an arms race, and the Democrats chose not to focus on small and local districts and elections (instead, worrying about…

I think they meant any party in power won't allow it, because partly how they get in power, is gerrymandering.

There's some merit to this. Chances are the democratic leadership won't let this through. Doesn't hurt to try though.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#149

Post by marcell »

mitchty wrote: post #141
marcell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

> For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican. > If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota. > Why should they get double representation in the Senate…

This seems like a bit of a troll?

You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate.

Also:

> Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.

And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#150

Post by mitchty »

marcell wrote: post #149
mitchty wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican. > If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota. > Why should they get double representation in the Senate…

This seems like a bit of a troll? You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate. Also: > Yes, as someone from North Dako…

> This seems like a bit of a troll?

Umm, no, thats the accepted reason why the territory was split in two instead of becoming a state outright.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory because apparently one must link history or be called a troll.

> Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in Congress and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889 and the territories could become states in nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land became available to settlers

> And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state.

Yet they're the same state today, and North and South Dakota are not. Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? Just so that it is more "fair" for Californian Senate inputs? The reason for the senate being 2 per state was to allow each state equal voting ability amongst states so that populated states couldn't easily override less populated states.

Post reply on HN