Fair Representation Act (HR 3057) • Hacker News Board

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#61

Post by haltingthoughts » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 7:12 PM UTC

boona wrote: post #20

vowelless wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wou…

You can look up DW nominate scores from since late 1800s and you'll see the rise since 1975

https://legacy.voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#62

Post by nine_k » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 7:27 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #59

nine_k wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want a secession? Because this is how you can get things to a secession. The law of the land applies to everyone, and the only way to have a law applicable equally to two groups with conflicting interests is to force one or both of them to sometimes do things they don't want. A half-way solution is a confederation, Switzerland-style. Weak central government, large variation in laws between cantons. Good luck t…

A possible solution is to reduce the surface of what can be imposed by law, so that what people vote can affect less the people around them. This can be done by more and stronger liberties (not rights, that's a different story). But even this one is far from enough. I am not thinking of any secession, that would solve nothing.

You want fewer things regulated by law? It's a fail goal, but you will face a huge number of "think of the children (elderly, environment, etc)" type of legislation, completely well-intentioned.

One of the problems with democracy is that governing a state is a job that should require certain qualification, experience, etc, but voting does not require any of this. Presumably the elected officials should be the experienced, reasonable people good at governing the state and making the least harmful compromises. But it's only a presumption. (Authoritarian governments are usually no better in this regard, too.)

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#63

Post by rnprince » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

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…

> the vast majority are happy with the result

See the congressional job approval numbers http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

> If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention

Does it matter what inspired people to ask for reform? They have a valid point that for solidly held districts, the minority's voice is completely erased in Congress.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#64

Post by brianolson » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC

matthewowen wrote: post #56

brianolson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instant Runoff Voting is severely flawed. It can solve basic problems like the Bush-Gore-Nader election where Nader voters probably would have preferred Gore, but it can also get the wrong answer and has in a real world election in 2009 in Burlington, VT: http://bolson.org/~bolson/2009/20090303_burlington_vt_mayor....

I find this example kinda 'eh'. FPTP also elects a 'wrong' winner, and it's not clear to me that the IRV is substantially wronger. I agree that there's probably a better way, but I fear that it could be at the cost of either ease of use or methodological clarity. Ranking candidates is relatively intuitive, and so is sequential elimination with votes reassigned to the next preference. I recognize that you could transf…

IRV is less wrong than pick-one; but more wrong than a dozen other election algorithms. If you want to read about one, read about Condorcet.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#65

Post by gmiller123456 » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 7:57 PM UTC

haltingthoughts wrote: post #61

boona wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wou…

You can look up DW nominate scores from since late 1800s and you'll see the rise since 1975 https://legacy.voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm

There's an xkcd that used the same data to produce a graph since the beginning: https://xkcd.com/1127/