NorthSideSox72 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) bleh. It's not the candidates it's the institutions. I can't even tell what you mean here. But I am firm believer that not only will it help politics in this country to have more choices, I also think it will have a direct effect on the current run-for-the-edges mentality in elected government and among the voting public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 07:05 PM) I can't even tell what you mean here. But I am firm believer that not only will it help politics in this country to have more choices, I also think it will have a direct effect on the current run-for-the-edges mentality in elected government and among the voting public. What I mean is if people really want to elect a third party politician, you need to elect a third party to congress, help build an organization so that party gets more seats, gets senate seats, then gets a presidential candidate. You elect a third party politician now? Great, awesome. But with a republican/democrat congress, it really doesn't matter what the hell the guy believes in. Obama's presidency was the fruition of 20 years of stewing legislation and other things formed through the dem caucus. This top down view of American democracy will never happen or wouldn't really matter. He/She'd come in, can't do or articulate anything, leaves. If people want choices, write to their congressman what they believe. The public wants a magic wand, but democracy is hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 04:17 PM) What I mean is if people really want to elect a third party politician, you need to elect a third party to congress, help build an organization so that party gets more seats, gets senate seats, then gets a presidential candidate. You elect a third party politician now? Great, awesome. But with a republican/democrat congress, it really doesn't matter what the hell the guy believes in. Obama's presidency was the fruition of 20 years of stewing legislation and other things formed through the dem caucus. This top down view of American democracy will never happen or wouldn't really matter. He/She'd come in, can't do or articulate anything, leaves. If people want choices, write to their congressman what they believe. The public wants a magic wand, but democracy is hard work. Magic wand? You seriously think that's what I am looking for here? Democracy is hard work? Are you talking to a kid in high school? Grass roots attempts at this are tried all the time, all over the country. Usually they fail, for a variety of reasons. But by dismissing the possibility of making an impact top-down, you are missing a very real tool to be used. The Prez election is high line. It is in front of everyone, and kept track of by many more people than local elections (right or wrong). You put the Greens and Libertarians on that stage, you give candidates in smaller races of all sorts a better chance, and that might push a few over the top and into real positions. As far as I am concerned, I would love to see it come into the system from all possible angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Repeat after me:CAMPAIGN. FINANCE. REFORM. Now continue: COMPUTER. DRAWN. CONGRESSIONAL. DISTRICTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) Repeat after me:CAMPAIGN. FINANCE. REFORM. Now continue: COMPUTER. DRAWN. CONGRESSIONAL. DISTRICTS The problem with the computer-drawn congressional districts is, you have to tell the software how to draw them. Those conditions will be fought over in the same exact way the maps are fought over now. You would have to pass a law with a standardized set of criteria for the software to use, all the time - good luck getting agreement on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) The problem with the computer-drawn congressional districts is, you have to tell the software how to draw them. Those conditions will be fought over in the same exact way the maps are fought over now. You would have to pass a law with a standardized set of criteria for the software to use, all the time - good luck getting agreement on that. Not really. Something close to geometric shapes based on population, redone every 10 years as people move around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) Not really. Something close to geometric shapes based on population, redone every 10 years as people move around. Sounds simple... but it isn't. You'd have Democrats wanting racial and ethnic diversity, and Republicans wanting it to be something other than just population to include businesses and rural areas. I like the idea, don't get me wrong, but since only a federal law could override the current state-by-state setup... you have to look at how Congress would f*** with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) Not really. Something close to geometric shapes based on population, redone every 10 years as people move around. I think his point is someone still has to program it. Population can be manipulated, and the computer wouldn't know if it is or not. Just because a computer is involved doesn't mean it's unbiased/legit. Someone programmed the program itself, and then someone created the data set it used to come to it's conclusion, not to mention, what constitutes population? Only people living there? What about the people that work there on a daily basis but don't live there? I.E., trust me, it CAN be controlled and/or manipulated. And it would be. Edited October 20, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 09:45 PM) I think his point is someone still has to program it. Population can be manipulated, and the computer wouldn't know if it is or not. Just because a computer is involved doesn't mean it's unbiased/legit. Someone programmed the program itself, and then someone created the data set it used to come to it's conclusion, not to mention, what constitutes population? Only people living there? What about the people that work there on a daily basis but don't live there? I.E., trust me, it CAN be controlled and/or manipulated. And it would be. For now, the second part is a pipe dream. The first part is very realistic and a LOT of problems trace back to it. That is if enough people are aware that it can be done... We've got people currently in Congress who actively oppose it because it is in their political interest to do so (hint as to where most of them come from: look at which SCOTUS justices voted for citizens united, and against, and think which presidents they were appointed by) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 09:32 PM) For now, the second part is a pipe dream. The first part is very realistic and a LOT of problems trace back to it. That is if enough people are aware that it can be done... We've got people currently in Congress who actively oppose it because it is in their political interest to do so (hint as to where most of them come from: look at which SCOTUS justices voted for citizens united, and against, and think which presidents they were appointed by) Do you think the Dems from Chicago would approve of a new system? There are how many Dems from Illinois in Congress? 7 IIRC. That is asinine. CHicagO has a population of just under 3 million and they have 7 reps. By my count that is three too many. The redistributing should be limited to no more than a few miles from the previous boundaries. This nonsense with districts running fron Wrigley Field all the way out to Hinsdale and Burr Ridge is just silly. I am now represented by Lipinski, which isn't so bad really because he is probably the only Dem I would vote for in the Illinois delegation. But Rush and Jackson should be running against each other and the city should lose that seat. How can anyone justify The number of seats Chicago has in the US Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think his point is someone still has to program it. Population can be manipulated, and the computer wouldn't know if it is or not. Just because a computer is involved doesn't mean it's unbiased/legit. Someone programmed the program itself, and then someone created the data set it used to come to it's conclusion, not to mention, what constitutes population? Only people living there? What about the people that work there on a daily basis but don't live there? I.E., trust me, it CAN be controlled and/or manipulated. And it would be. Every algorithm one could use will have some kind of bias, even if it's unintentional. I have always favored creating an algorithm that uses TV market boundaries as the district boundaries as much as possible. It's probably still a biased system, but you minimize the number of districts within each TV market which (a) minimizes the number of TV markets any particular candidate needs to cover with TV ads and (b) minimizes the number of races for which voters are bombarded with ads any any given TV market. Or yet, even a better solution: Since we draw such crazy boundaries anyway and since so many candidates move around their state to find winnable districts and aren't really FROM their district anyway, how about entirely eliminating districts? Within your state, you vote for a slate of candidates from a party. If in your state the Republican slate gets 60% of the vote and the Democratic slate gets 40%, then the Republicans get 60% of the seats and the Democrats 40%. Then there are no more 'safe' districts and everybody's vote is worth something. In bigger states like California and Texas, a third party slate getting 3-5% of the vote would actually net them a seat or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 20, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Do you think the Dems from Chicago would approve of a new system? There are how many Dems from Illinois in Congress? 7 IIRC. That is asinine. CHicagO has a population of just under 3 million and they have 7 reps. By my count that is three too many. The redistributing should be limited to no more than a few miles from the previous boundaries. This nonsense with districts running fron Wrigley Field all the way out to Hinsdale and Burr Ridge is just silly. I am now represented by Lipinski, which isn't so bad really because he is probably the only Dem I would vote for in the Illinois delegation. But Rush and Jackson should be running against each other and the city should lose that seat. How can anyone justify The number of seats Chicago has in the US Congress? Who in Illinois do you think is underrepresented and should get those extra four reps you want to eliminate? What's the population density of the Chicago districts vs. non-Chicago districts? The average House district size is about 650k, so Chicago+suburbs (like you mentioned, some go from Wrigley out into the western suburbs) getting 7 reps seems about right. Cook County has over 5 million people alone, which means if anything, Chicago-area citizens are under-represented on a per-person basis. Edited October 22, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) Who in Illinois do you think is underrepresented and should get those extra four reps you want to eliminate? What's the population density of the Chicago districts vs. non-Chicago districts? The average House district size is about 650k, so Chicago+suburbs (like you mentioned, some go from Wrigley out into the western suburbs) getting 7 reps seems about right. Cook County has over 5 million people alone, which means if anything, Chicago-area citizens are under-represented on a per-person basis. Chicago Metro has 9M people in it, give or take. Remove he NW Ind and SE WI bits, and its more like 8M. 8 millions divided by 650K is about 12.3, so... yeah, the Chicago area appearst to be very underrepresented, if they have just 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Average size was just under 650k in 2000, so it'll be a little higher now: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/boun...Apport.html#two Chicago metro area is over 9.8M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Why are you both conflating Chicago with Chicago metro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Because the districts themselves conflate Chicago and Chicago metro? There are 8 districts that cover the city of Chicago, but every one of those districts reaches out into the suburbs. They're all pretty narrow and finger-shaped. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/IL (make sure to switch over to the 2012 map) Edited October 22, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 This is why "fact-checkers" can be terrible: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-...hofstra-debate/ Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.” Obama employed the “act of terror” phrase a third time a day later at a campaign event in Colorado. Ok! So it looks like it took Obama less than a day to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. Pretty clear-cut, right?? But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. So, even though Obama literally said "act of terror" three times in less than 48 hours, Romney's charge that it took him 14 days to say "act of terror" isn't "entirely wrong" somehow. Let's see why that may be... A day later, Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said “here’s what happened” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” So on September 18th he again said it was terrorists, but somehow Romney's statement is still not entirely wrong! A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” So on the 19th and 21st, the WH again explicitly called it terrorism. I'm still not sure how Romney's statement that it took 14 days for them to call it an act of terror isn't unequivocally wrong, but... Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. That was on Sept. 24. He said, “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.” Well, after days of calling it terrorism, including the two days after the attack, Obama is maybe slightly non-committal on The View but did say it wasn't just a mob action and that they were still gathering information. In what world is Romney's charge that it took them 14 days to call it an act of terror "not entirely wrong?" Taking a couple of weeks to come up with the definitive answer on exactly what happened doesn't make Romney's statement any closer to the truth. Saying that the video and the protests in response were maybe part of it doesn't make it not terrorism and doesn't make Romney's statement any closer to the truth. "Democrats said act of terror, Republicans disagree. We rate this claim as partially true! Both sides." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) Why are you both conflating Chicago with Chicago metro? We? You mean, why are YOU doing it, right? You are taking districts that include the suburbs, but also include the city, and somehow making the case that the city has too many reps. You were the one doing this to start the conversation. Lots of reasons to find the districting process ridiculous. You, however, are creating one that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Romney has a bigger american flag pin. Totallly voting for him. Obama hates America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Election over. 4 more years. Romney just got f***ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 context? I'm not watching this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Obama's kicking his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I did read about the horses and bayonet line! Good, Romney's battleship line was so incredibly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 watching the Bears. already tired of debate bickering after switching over for 5 seconds of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 @BlG_SEAN: Mitt Romneys five point plan 1. To the left 2. Take it back now y'all 3. Right foot let's stomp 4. Left foot let's stomp 5. Cha Cha now yall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts