Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

[shuttlt]

It doesn't have to be political. There is a way to significantly reduce the influence of politics in redistricting.

Reduce, maybe. Wherever there are choices made by humans there is politics. Setting the districts as they are now in stone would be a way of making it politics free, certainly more so than the 7% thing you proposed.

Before a consensus is reached, there has to be an alternative to reach a consensus about. I'm still waiting for you to agree that there is an alternative that will reduce the influence of raw politics and power in redistricting, and that's where our conversation is.

I just gave you a method that removed any politics from the decision making. We set the current districts in stone and agree never to change them again. Politics removed.

The formula I'm suggesting is not constructed to make either side the winner, which is the whole point.

No, of course not. Because you can rise above politics. You are just coming up with this on the basis of objective metrics and values that we can all agree on by rising above politics. I've done the same. My method takes even more of the politics out of it going forward than yours does since we stop redistricting entirely.

If one side becomes the winner through using that formula for redistricting, that has more to do with the will of the people than the formula, whose effect is to **reduce** the influence of political gamesmanship in redistricting.

My formula removes all the gamesmanship.

The label "technocratic" does no work on the more primary issue. If you think that the plan I linked to does not significantly reduce the impact of raw politics and power in redistricting, then please make that case. If you can accept that the plan does reduce politics in redistricting, then please say so and we can move on.

I have a plan that completely does away with the politics. My plan is better.

 

[Paul2]

Reduce, maybe. Wherever there are choices made by humans there is politics. Setting the districts as they are now in stone would be a way of making it politics free, certainly more so than the 7% thing you proposed.


I just gave you a method that removed any politics from the decision making. We set the current districts in stone and agree never to change them again. Politics removed.


No, of course not. Because you can rise above politics. You are just coming up with this on the basis of objective metrics and values that we can all agree on by rising above politics. I've done the same. My method takes even more of the politics out of it going forward than yours does since we stop redistricting entirely.


My formula removes all the gamesmanship.


I have a plan that completely does away with the politics. My plan is better.

Setting current districts in stone would keep the political decisions made in the recent past in effect. It may remove political decisions in the future, but it is not removing politics.

 

[Pacal]

Setting current districts in stone would keep the political decisions made in the recent past in effect. It may remove political decisions in the future, but it is not removing politics.

Actually Britain and other European countries had systems like that. It resulted in situations in which some voting districts had less than 10 voters and others had many thousands.

 

[shuttlt]

Setting current districts in stone would keep the political decisions made in the recent past in effect. It may remove political decisions in the future, but it is not removing politics.

And your plan wouldn't be political? You've risen above the politics. You're just reasoning based on apolitical principles that are objective and any rational person would agree on, like the appropriate balance between the various goals, that we all agree on, of redistricting. That doesn't sound political at all.

How about we take the politics out of the decision of how to redistrict? We get the legislatures to each nominate an independent, apolitical advisor who will come up with a redistricting formula. That way, we know that the whole thing has had the politics removed from it.

 

[shuttlt]

Actually Britain and other European countries had systems like that. It resulted in situations in which some voting districts had less than 10 voters and others had many thousands.

I'm well aware of rotten boroughs. That is a rather more extreme than the case that exists in the US. You are going back to a time when in Britain only 5% of the adult population had the vote. If the situation in the US looked like that, we'd be having a different conversation. The purpose of elections back then really wasn't anything to do with representing the popular will of the people, since almost none of the people were asked.

 

[Paul2]

And your plan wouldn't be political? You've risen above the politics. You're just reasoning based on apolitical principles that are objective and any rational person would agree on, like the appropriate balance between the various goals, that we all agree on, of redistricting. That doesn't sound political at all.

Describe to me how my plan would not reduce the influence of power/politics in redistricting. It sure seems like it would, but if I'm missing something, I'm ready to be enlightened

How about we take the politics out of the decision of how to redistrict? We get the legislatures to each nominate an independent, apolitical advisor who will come up with a redistricting formula. That way, we know that the whole thing has had the politics removed from it.

I'm not arguing for an independent advisor to develop a plan. In fact, my proposal doesn't even specify *who* will develop the redistricting plan. My proposal merely set objective standards by which any plan will be judged. If you think my proposal doesn't have more neutral, objective standards - that the standards must, by themselves, create a less neutral playing field for one party over the other, beyond what the electorate wants - I'm ready to hear exactly how the proposal does that.

 

[shuttlt]

Describe to me how my plan would not reduce the influence of power/politics in redistricting. It sure seems like it would, but if I'm missing something, I'm ready to be enlightened

My plan does away with the politics in redistricting, but you don't seem to like it. Any scheme for setting up rules for redistricting, or stopping redistricting is inherently political. It can't be otherwise.

I'm not arguing for an independent advisor to develop a plan. In fact, my proposal doesn't even specify *who* will develop the redistricting plan. My proposal merely set objective standards by which any plan will be judged.

Yes, but what standard is a good standard to set is a political question. The assumptions that lead to thinking it is a good standard are not politically neutral. The effect of the plan isn't politically neutral. It isn't possible to rise above politics because your assumptions about what would make a good plan imply value judgements, and hence have politics baked into them.

If you think my proposal doesn't have more neutral, objective standards - that the standards must, by themselves, create a less neutral playing field for one party over the other, beyond what the electorate wants - I'm ready to hear exactly how the proposal does that.

Your plan and your standards are political neutral to the same degree that I have no accent whatsoever. The fact that you can't see that your assumptions about the world, and what you think are good and fair are political positions is the nature of our disagreement. This is why I mentioned technocracy before. Frequently in discussions with people who favour technocratic/managerial approaches to issues, one finds that they view their own political opinions as a sort of neutral conclusion arrived at via reason that everybody else would adopt, if only they too could also rise above politics.

Politics cannot be risen above.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I just gave you a method that removed any politics from the decision making. We set the current districts in stone and agree never to change them again. Politics removed.
.....

That is inherently ridiculous. The intent of redistricting is to ensure that each representative serves more or less the same number of voters. That's why it happens after every census. That's in fact one of the purposes of the census. Gerrymandering results when the majority party draws the lines to benefit itself. It doesn't have to happen that way. Some states use bipartisan commissions or judicial committees to draw the lines. But what would the result be today if the districts had been "set in stone" in say, 1950? Or 1900? Or when the Constitution was written? Thinks about it for, say, two seconds.

 

[Paul2]

My plan does away with the politics in redistricting, but you don't seem to like it.

What your plan does has nothing to do with the question I asked you about my plan. Also, I've responded to your idea about what your plan does.

Any scheme for setting up rules for redistricting, or stopping redistricting is inherently political. It can't be otherwise.

I haven't claimed my proposal is not inherently political (and I haven't claimed the opposite, either). I've only said it would *reduce* political & power-grabbing in redistricting.

Yes, but what standard is a good standard to set is a political question. The assumptions that lead to thinking it is a good standard are not politically neutral.

It's not an assumption, it's demonstrable mathematically that it reduces the discrepancy between what the electorate wants (within a margin of error) and election results. I'm not claiming it's good nor bad. I'm claiming it will reduce political and power-grabbing influence in redistricting.

The effect of the plan isn't politically neutral. It isn't possible to rise above politics because your assumptions about what would make a good plan imply value judgements, and hence have politics baked into them.

Why, especially since it reduces the influence of redistricting when on party tries to gain an advantage, and that reduction is demonstrable mathematically.

Your plan and your standards are political neutral to the same degree that I have no accent whatsoever. The fact that you can't see that your assumptions about the world, and what you think are good and fair are political positions is the nature of our disagreement.

This is an argument by analogy, and the entire question is whether my proposal is analogous to not having an accent. So the analogy doesn't get us any further down the road.

This is why I mentioned technocracy before. Frequently in discussions with people who favour technocratic/managerial approaches to issues, one finds that they view their own political opinions as a sort of neutral conclusion arrived at via reason that everybody else would adopt, if only they too could also rise above politics.

Politics cannot be risen above.

And exactly how would my proposal not create a decrease in the purely political and power-grabbing opportunities in redistricting. You can't merely say that politics can't be risen above - or can't be minimized - without some basis or evidence, especially in relation to the specifics of my proposal. Otherwise, it becomes a dogma.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Just because you are fixated about it doesn't mean I have to make it the center of my argument.

But then you miss what really happening in this country now.

 

[shuttlt]

That is inherently ridiculous. The intent of redistricting is to ensure that each representative serves more or less the same number of voters.

I'm giving a way of taking politics out of redistricting. Any change, whether Paul2's or mine would require a change in the law. I don't think Congressional redistricting hasn't been federally required to equalise the voters since the 1930s. Before that compactness and contagiousness were also goals of the redistricting process. Individual states may have their own goals about it.

That's why it happens after every census. That's in fact one of the purposes of the census.

That may be originally why it was done, though again.... there were other factors to weigh in there other than equal number of votes. All that was dropped nearly 100 years ago.

Gerrymandering results when the majority party draws the lines to benefit itself.

I have never argued otherwise.

It doesn't have to happen that way. Some states use bipartisan commissions or judicial committees to draw the lines.

Sure, and those may very well be good systems. Redistricting can never be apolitical though.

But what would he result today if the districts had been "set in stone" in say, 1950? Or 1900? Or when the Constitution was written? Thinks about it for, say, two seconds.

I suggested that as an example of something that took the politics out of redistricting since Paul2 was recommending his plan based on it reducing the politics. I don't say it wouldn't be a political act to set the districts in stone as they are now or were in the 1950s. I was attempting to illustrate that you can't take the politics out of redistricting by setting a formula for the districts. That formula is political. You are just moving the politics.

 

[shuttlt]

What your plan does has nothing to do with the question I asked you about my plan. Also, I've responded to your idea about what your plan does.

Your plan, like mine just moves the politics to the decision to go with the plan. Sure, in the place where the politics was there was less politics. There is now a heap of politics in the new place that you moved it to.

I haven't claimed my proposal is not inherently political (and I haven't claimed the opposite, either). I've only said it would *reduce* political & power-grabbing in redistricting.

Mine would reduce the power-grabbing of redistricting even more by stopping it entirely. You've just moved some of the politics and the power grab to the decision about what formula to apply to redistricting, I've moved all of it.

It's not an assumption, it's demonstrable mathematically that it reduces the discrepancy between what the electorate wants (within a margin of error) and election results.

Right, and thinking that that is the thing that needs to be maximised is a view that doesn't have politics embedded in it? Would being against the electoral college also be an apolitical position that you can get to with maths?

I'm not claiming it's good nor bad. I'm claiming it will reduce political and power-grabbing influence in redistricting.

Well, presumably somebody would have to decide if it is good or bad and that this was the system to go for. In that case the point where they decide is where you have moved the missing politics.

Why, especially since it reduces the influence of redistricting when on party tries to gain an advantage, and that reduction is demonstrable mathematically.

My system removes all the politics, yours only removes some. Mine is mathematically better than yours.

This is an argument by analogy, and the entire question is whether my proposal is analogous to not having an accent. So the analogy doesn't get us any further down the road.

The analogy wasn't an argument, it was an illustration. You are only able to say that you have reduced the politics by excluding the place you have moved the politics from the calculation.

And exactly how would my proposal not create a decrease in the purely political and power-grabbing opportunities in redistricting.

It would I'm sure do that. Mine would do it more. Your idea just moves the politics in the same way as mine does. Both ideas are flawed in the same way, though the flaws in mine are intentionally more stark.

You can't merely say that politics can't be risen above - or can't be minimized - without some basis or evidence, especially in relation to the specifics of my proposal. Otherwise, it becomes a dogma.

To come up with a scheme for redistricting, you have to have some idea of what fair districting would look like. That is a value judgement and hence political. There is no apolitical notion of fairness. There is no, and can be no, apolitical formula for redistricting. You can have systems that are light on formula and put the politics into the redistricting decisions, or you can have a more rigid formula and put the politics into the choice of formula.

 

[shuttlt]

But then you miss what really happening in this country now.

That I am unwilling to argue with you about a topic is not the same as me not being aware of and having no opinions on it. If you have some unique insight, I suppose I may be missing out, but one cannot argue everything with everyone, so it is always a risk.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That I am unwilling to argue with you about a topic is not the same as me not being aware of and having no opinions on it. If you have some unique insight, I suppose I may be missing out, but one cannot argue everything with everyone, so it is always a risk.

You can't just make the Argument conservative vs. Liberal any more now it sane Rational vs insane crazy.

 

[Bob001]

.....
My system removes all the politics, yours only removes some. Mine is mathematically better than yours.
.....

You are electing officials to pass legislation that affects everyone. It is inherently a political process. Why shouldn't it be? These aren't DMV clerks. And it is a basic Constitutional principle that representatives should represent more or less equal numbers of voters.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

Originally:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html

Your system could give equal weight in Congress to one district with 10 voters and another with 10 million. Why do you even imagine that makes sense?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

For one thing, I think one needs to distinguish between suburban and urban. Suburban is about 50% of people and is kind of even between Republicans and Democrats. For another, will it continue? With so many people working from home over the past couple of years, I wonder whether that trend may not see a shift.

False premise.
The Democrat/Cities vs. Republican/countryside divide is not inevitable, and the original sin was to force voters into it through the system of the EC.
Republicans could win cities if they wanted t, especially those with a large Latin population. But that idea died with Trump.

You guys always come at this as if I'm looking at these imbalances and saying "beyond X%, it's immoral". I'm not. I'm saying that there are consequences to all these things.

But GOP leaders explicitly want more small, uniform counties to win no matter what, rather than trying to compete for voters.
Republicans had their way for decades now, with no Republican President winning by popular vote.
It's time to reverse the trend towards minority rule, for the good of the voters, the country, and yes, the GOP which could adapt to the new demographics instead of picking their voters from a shrinking segment.
This is only an "Us vs Them" because Republicans want it that way.

 

[Paul2]

Your plan, like mine just moves the politics to the decision to go with the plan. Sure, in the place where the politics was there was less politics. There is now a heap of politics in the new place that you moved it to.


Mine would reduce the power-grabbing of redistricting even more by stopping it entirely. You've just moved some of the politics and the power grab to the decision about what formula to apply to redistricting, I've moved all of it.


Right, and thinking that that is the thing that needs to be maximised is a view that doesn't have politics embedded in it? Would being against the electoral college also be an apolitical position that you can get to with maths?


Well, presumably somebody would have to decide if it is good or bad and that this was the system to go for. In that case the point where they decide is where you have moved the missing politics.


My system removes all the politics, yours only removes some. Mine is mathematically better than yours.


The analogy wasn't an argument, it was an illustration. You are only able to say that you have reduced the politics by excluding the place you have moved the politics from the calculation.


It would I'm sure do that. Mine would do it more. Your idea just moves the politics in the same way as mine does. Both ideas are flawed in the same way, though the flaws in mine are intentionally more stark.


To come up with a scheme for redistricting, you have to have some idea of what fair districting would look like. That is a value judgement and hence political. There is no apolitical notion of fairness. There is no, and can be no, apolitical formula for redistricting. You can have systems that are light on formula and put the politics into the redistricting decisions, or you can have a more rigid formula and put the politics into the choice of formula.

Before we go any further, recall that I critiqued your proposal:

Setting current districts in stone would keep the political decisions made in the recent past in effect. It may remove political decisions in the future, but it is not removing politics.

Your response,

And your plan wouldn't be political? You've risen above the politics. You're just reasoning based on apolitical principles that are objective and any rational person would agree on, like the appropriate balance between the various goals, that we all agree on, of redistricting. That doesn't sound political at all.

How about we take the politics out of the decision of how to redistrict? We get the legislatures to each nominate an independent, apolitical advisor who will come up with a redistricting formula. That way, we know that the whole thing has had the politics removed from it.

merely asked some rhetorical questions along with some sarcasm, which I have nothing against in principle. However, can you make plain, declarative statements that rebut my critique so everyone can be clear as to exactly what is wrong with my critique?

 

[Paul2]

Your plan,. . . .

The other thing that you never replied to substantively was this:

Describe to me how my plan would not reduce the influence of power/politics in redistricting. It sure seems like it would, but if I'm missing something, I'm ready to be enlightened

Your reply was to merely talk about your plan:

My plan does away with the politics in redistricting, but you don't seem to like it. Any scheme for setting up rules for redistricting, or stopping redistricting is inherently political. It can't be otherwise.

Can you please refer to my proposal and why it would not reduce the influence of power/politics in redistricting. Note that I am not claiming it will eliminate politics in redistricting, merely reduce it.

 

[shuttlt]

You are electing officials to pass legislation that affects everyone. It is inherently a political process. Why shouldn't it be? These aren't DMV clerks. And it is a basic Constitutional principle that representatives should represent more or less equal numbers of voters.

I know. I am arguing that it is inherently political. I think your argument here is with Paul2.

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

Originally:

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html

Your system could give equal weight in Congress to one district with 10 voters and another with 10 million. Why do you even imagine that makes sense?

None of that looks to be saying that, within the states, representatives have to have an equally populous district. It's just saying that Rhode Island gets fewer representatives than California.

 

[shuttlt]

merely asked some rhetorical questions along with some sarcasm, which I have nothing against in principle. However, can you make plain, declarative statements that rebut my critique so everyone can be clear as to exactly what is wrong with my critique?

My critique is that you are correct that the last redistricting that I am talking about setting in stone was political. Your proposal to change the redistricting rules is political. All you are doing is moving the politics of it from a regular political exercise to a one off political exercise. I've said this repeatedly. You then reply by saying that I haven't said what I think is wrong with your plan.