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

Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

fairvote.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#11

Post by halomru »

mc32 wrote: post #9

My horse in the race did not win. It wasn't HRC. However the feeling I get is a lot of her voters are in disbelief she lost and can't understand the opponent having won. It feels as if they felt entitled to a result that didn't pan out. If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention. That said, gerrymandering has two effects, one negative, one positive. On the negative side, there is lit…

By that line of reasoning, this proposal is great because not only the first but also the second and third candidate are elected, making an even later portion of the voters happy

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#12

Post by mc32 »

halomru wrote: post #11
mc32 wrote: post #9

My horse in the race did not win. It wasn't HRC. However the feeling I get is a lot of her voters are in disbelief she lost and can't understand the opponent having won. It feels as if they felt entitled to a result that didn't pan out. If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention. That said, gerrymandering has two effects, one negative, one positive. On the negative side, there is lit…

By that line of reasoning, this proposal is great because not only the first but also the second and third candidate are elected, making an even later portion of the voters happy

That's a fair point and it has merit. I however don't think the big two will care for it as it does two things, weakens their positions and two give fringe/radicals on both sides voices, of course regular run of the mill third parties (who would syphon votes from the big two).

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#13

Post by erentz »

razorunreal wrote: post #7
pmorici wrote: post #2

I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" because the political divisions of our times are some how uniquely worse than at any other point in US history. If you go read books like "A People's History of the United States" or other historical accounts that go beyond the typical 8th grade / high school US history you will find a lot of examples of when things were as bad as they are today or ar…

This "half baked" idea is just proportional representation. It's not like they invented it, and it seems to work well enough in New Zealand, in fact most complaints seem to be that it isn't perfectly proportional.

Agreed. Though this looks like it's an STV system more like Australia. Which would be the most logical system for the USA as implementing something like MMP would be a big shift requiring the formalization of the role of parties in government with party lists and a party vote.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#14

Post by baron816 »

I think this is a good solution. It is going to take a while for people to accept it though. It's been clear to me that most Americans think our version of democracy is the only possible version of democracy, and that anything else would lead to tyranny. Or that our Constitution is perfect and we're just using it wrong. People hate our government, so it's strange that they love the document that makes it the way it is. I think we should change the Constitution or write a new one, but I know that's hard, so this FRA is probably more practical than my solution.

I hope people will soon recognize that they're not going to get major change in the way government operates just by changing the people who get elected. We need to change HOW people get elected.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#15

Post by twoodfin »

vowelless wrote: post #5
pmorici wrote: post #2

I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" because the political divisions of our times are some how uniquely worse than at any other point in US history. If you go read books like "A People's History of the United States" or other historical accounts that go beyond the typical 8th grade / high school US history you will find a lot of examples of when things were as bad as they are today or ar…

> I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM So the trend does not seem to be ideal here. It seems like the proposed act will directly impact this increasing split. More details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...

Partisanship didn't increase in a vacuum. The parties lined up more closely with longstanding ideological and cultural divides. There are fewer Southern conservative Democrats, but that's because they became Southern conservative Republicans. Liberal Northern Republicans became liberal Northern Democrats.

It's not clear to me how this proposal would change that fact. And it could very well do the opposite. If 51/49 super-districts are always electing one Republican and one Democrat, what incentive does either representative have to play to the center?

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#17

Post by Melanie343 »

baron816 wrote: post #14

I think this is a good solution. It is going to take a while for people to accept it though. It's been clear to me that most Americans think our version of democracy is the only possible version of democracy, and that anything else would lead to tyranny. Or that our Constitution is perfect and we're just using it wrong. People hate our government, so it's strange that they love the document that makes it the way it i…

I get paid over $95 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing, •••••••••>>http://www.joinmate2.com

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#18

Post by BurningFrog »

pmorici wrote: post #2

I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" because the political divisions of our times are some how uniquely worse than at any other point in US history. If you go read books like "A People's History of the United States" or other historical accounts that go beyond the typical 8th grade / high school US history you will find a lot of examples of when things were as bad as they are today or ar…

Sure, things were worse during the civil war for example. But that's a really low bar.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#19

Post by DennisP »

redm wrote: post #6

I don't think the problem is districts. Governance in the US works through compromise. The hyper-partisan environment is caused by bases pushing representatives apart and not allowing for understanding. To make matters worse, a tiny percentage of voters are educated on the issues in a meaningful way. They are educated in soundbites though which exacerbates the issue. A representative democracy can't function with the…

Part of the reason for the hyper-partisan environment is that the districts are safely held by their respective parties, so the only real competition is in the primaries.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#20

Post by boona »

vowelless wrote: post #5
pmorici wrote: post #2

I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" because the political divisions of our times are some how uniquely worse than at any other point in US history. If you go read books like "A People's History of the United States" or other historical accounts that go beyond the typical 8th grade / high school US history you will find a lot of examples of when things were as bad as they are today or ar…

> I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM So the trend does not seem to be ideal here. It seems like the proposed act will directly impact this increasing split. More details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...

> This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years

I've worked in government, and when we were asked to generate reports, there was a conclusion that they wanted to draw and they were looking for data to back it. If you ever hear something like "during the Carter era" it's likely because that's the only time the data showed what we wanted to make a point.

In this case, I would need to see why they chose 60 years rather than say 100 years. 60 seems like an arbitrary number that needs to be investigated. They may be right, but having read their pitch, there are a bunch of red flags that scream that this is ideologically driven rather than actually being "fair".

I'd be interested if someone did a deeper analysis.

Post reply on HN