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

151–160 of 180 posts

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#151

Post by rayiner »

baron816 wrote: post #12
zeckalpha wrote: post #3

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

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 went five years without Congress being able to pass a budget during the Obama administration. If we tried to come up with a new Constitution we'd not have one country anymore. (Which may well be what we need.)

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#152

Post by lsaferite »

anarazel wrote: post #104
jccalhoun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The party is power is whichever party happens to have more votes at any given time. Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why would they risk doing something that might take them out of power?

> The party is power is whichever party happens to have more votes at any given time. That's really not true in the political system of the US, even without partisan gerrymandering. Given that the entire point of partisan gerrymandering is to enlarge the distance between popular vote and gained seats, I'm not sure what you're trying to say? > Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why woul…

> You can win the electoral college / house / senate / whatever, despite being disadvantaged via gerrymandering

Of course you can always still overcome gerrymandering with enough political momentum. Gerrymandering currently tips the scales slightly in the direction of one party or another. Fixing gerrymandering would level the playing field (in theory).

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#153

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

This isn't imposing open primaries, or doing anything comparable Constitutionally.

AFAICT, it's a fairly straightforward application of Congress plenary power to regulate House elections (Art. I, Sec. 4, para. 1.)

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#154

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#155

Post by Clubber »

nostrademons wrote: post #143
Clubber wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is how I see it as well. People get so emotionally tied to a particular argument, whether that be gun control or abortion or whatever, and it becomes all consuming where all other discussion or ideas seem fall by the wayside as secondary.

I suspect for our only two viable political parties, that's a feature, not a bug.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#156

Post by NickM »

jfabre wrote: post #124
roywiggins wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world wouldn't run without at least a little hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy is inherently immoral. Some immoral actions are hypocritical, but some hypocritical actions are the right thing to do.

Can you give a concrete example where being an hypocrite would be the right thing to do?

Suppose I want to fight climate change, and I decide to make a documentary to raise awareness. The logistics of making a documentary is certainly going to result in some amount of additional carbon emissions being produced. I might be called a hypocrite for creating all these CO2 emissions to make a movie that tells people to emit less CO2.

But does that mean it was wrong of me to create this documentary? Not necessarily. If people watch my film and take action to reduce worldwide emissions, it's likely to cancel out the carbon cost of making the film in the first place.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#157

Post by treebeard901 »

One solution to the problem might be to increase the number of representatives. The house was supposed to scale with the population. This was stopped in early 1900. It's a scaling problem. More people to vote for means less effective gerrymandering.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#158

Post by chongli »

nostrademons wrote: post #143
Clubber wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Rhetoric such as the use of logical fallacies like tu quoque is most effective on people who haven't picked a tribe yet. Dyed-in-the-wool supporters have the job of repeating the fallacies aimed at the other guy. It doesn't matter if they believe them or not.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#159

Post by afpx »

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.

Interesting. But, prisoners dilemma assumes that there's an authority that is imposing rules and punishments. In democracy, we are the authority and we can change the rules.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#160

Post by cjensen »

jack9 wrote: post #122
cjensen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure, but under the US Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves. So this bill is unenforceable. Both parties like to pass symbolic gestures like this on occasion even though they know it cannot be law. The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race.…

> I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing. From the US Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/,…

I did check the sources. The line you quote is the wrong line. The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. Further, "how districting is performed" is pretty vague in the original Constitution which I believe means it is left to the states to decide. The 14th Amendment implies that the states must use districts -- before then they could have used a statewide system.
Post reply on HN