Why do you need individual data for gerrymandering? Don't you only need area level?
To optimally crack a district to bias in one parties favour it is often required to literally run a boundary down a street to separate one side (close to a university, say) from the other. Once you've table voter preferences to actual street addresses you are no longer in the realm of "broad area cumulative averages and medians".
My favorite gerrymandering story was when I learned an ~800 student local college had been split down the middle, so students were in different congressional districts depending on their dorm building.
As I understand it, in the Soviet Union you had to get government permission before moving. Whereas here the right to move is guaranteed, you just have to update your details.
You are right, I apologize What's the fine for not registering your move? What time do you have to update your location? In Russia in the 90s we had 5 days and now it's three months. The fine is 3000 rubles (~40 euro) and zero if you moved in the same region (most of them are bigger than Switzerland:) or live at relative's or spouse's place I used to think that what we have in Russia is Soviet legacy (albeit relaxed)…
Usually 14 days and ~50-200 CHF. But you can usually do it online now, so it's trivial.
The legislative seats are barely more malleable than the executive ones, and they’re a lot cheaper to buy off. Even with grassroots efforts to elect local candidates and move them up, it takes a perfect storm to actually get someone that’s even modestly different than the empty suits that largely fill those seats already. I have zero faith in this system to execute anything other than purchased policy agendas, or emp…
The Republicans were successful with the Tea Party in taking over the House and the Presidency, that's a model which I'd argue is really proven to work in our two party system because we all just literally watched it play out in real-time. Arguing against that, probably comes from a cynical neoliberal perspective where the Democratic Party can't change because the argument assumes that the Democratic Party can't chan…
The Tea Party had the support of the Koch brothers, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, et al. They had a VP puppet on the bill, Palin, almost immediately after their inception, despite McCain being a center-leaning Republican. It was not a grassroots movement. Make any unfounded assumption you like about my motivation, and construct and straw men you want between you and that reality, but it is reality. It was bought and paid for before anybody had even heard of it. The closest thing the democrats have seen to a national-scale grassroots political initiative was Sanders, and the DNC torpedoed it reflexively.
I see. It's possible to detect the scheme per se even though the detection would not lead to charges (ballots from the people registered at the same address are completely legal) and thus would not be conducted. The point your correspondent has initially made: it's impossible to detect illegal voting in such a scheme.
> even though the detection would not lead to charges Didn't you cite a charging document upthread?
I see. It's possible to detect the scheme per se even though the detection would not lead to charges (ballots from the people registered at the same address are completely legal) and thus would not be conducted. The point your correspondent has initially made: it's impossible to detect illegal voting in such a scheme.
What...? Virtually every type of fraud is first detected by detection of a nominally legal but abnormal behavior, then it's investigated to figure out whether fraud actually occurred. That would – obviously – be exactly how any voter fraud detection scheme works, but I guess you're saying that because the initially detected abnormality is not itself illegal, it wouldn't be investigated? This is like saying "it's not…
Now you are just saying "illegal voting can be detected in this scheme even though I don't know how". Very smart!
So "differential privacy" pretty much sounds like someone gets to modify the results of a census and how it gets modified is entirely up to their discretion. Seems like something that could be abused to achieve political objectives.
The replacement will be more or less similar to the pre-1990 bin-dropping, where the government will just not report on too-small slices (read, almost definitionally: minorities). Which is also politically biased, in a different way.
This is why for the census my forms said that I was a poor widow from Kazakhstan with 9 chidren , no education and an adherent of the Mandean faith. Never ever provide true information in any form.
Whatever you do, there is a level of trust that is assumed when census takes place. The trust that this data is then not identified in a way that could be targeted for scams, frauds, and other such evils. But in NY, house sale records are made public but much to the detriment, many mortgage companies fake a bill for payment. Differential privacy is absolutely necessary, and the social scientists being unable to recon…
In Ohio (or at least my county) the deed and mortgage are public record. As is a record when the mortgage is paid off. Interestly also property tax charges and payments are, too
The ownership and selling price of a parcel of property are pretty much a matter of public record throughout most (all?) of the US along with aa number of other things. Deeds are recorded with the county clerk in MA.
Some of that can be obfuscated through LLCs and trusts but some things are pretty much a matter of public record that not everyone agrees should be. More is doubtless available in some locales. I don't think property tax charges are public where I live though who knows if I asked the town clerk nicely. (Property taxes are at the town level where I live.)
Not voting is much more insulting, by far. Edit: "civic religion" aha. Sorry, I should have guessed you were trolling. Can't wait to see what kind of revolution you cook up.
Civil religions and in particular an American Civil religion, are a real thing[1]. Not sure if that’s what the guy meant however. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
Huh. Thank you! I had no idea. Prior to your share, I would have lumped all that stuff into "culture formation".