Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

[shuttlt]

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



Your reply was to merely talk about your plan:

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.

I have explained this to you several times already. Your plan will reduce the politics in the regular process of redistricting by piling it all up into a big heap of politics in changing the rules that govern redistricting.

I have another method to propose, we do it based on area from now on. We'll fix the size of the districts so they all must have equal area. Would that be a non-political change to the redistricting process?

 

[LongFuzzy]

Some things I've read give me the idea that Trump actually saved the US from the coup. This may belong in the conspiracy section. The Republican heavy weights put in place a plan to retain power. We've seen some of that plan. The congress objections to the state electors, and the 'forged' documents of alternate Republican electors, that were filed, were two parts of the plan. Other parts have not been identified yet, as the coup did not last long enough for them to become active. Trump, by sending his mob to the capital threw a monkey wrench into the plan that was unfolding. His own stupidity prevented the coup. Texts to Meadows telling Trump to call of the attack was the last ditch effort to continue the coup. Hannity knew of the plan, that's why his text about concern of violence at the capital. Maybe the republican leaders did not tell Trump about their plan, knowing what an idiot he is. I'm probably completely wrong, but I like the idea of Trumps stupidity killing the plan to keep him in office.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Some things I've read give me the idea that Trump actually saved the US from the coup. This may belong in the conspiracy section. The Republican heavy weights put in place a plan to retain power. We've seen some of that plan. The congress objections to the state electors, and the 'forged' documents of alternate Republican electors, that were filed, were two parts of the plan. Other parts have not been identified yet, as the coup did not last long enough for them to become active. Trump, by sending his mob to the capital threw a monkey wrench into the plan that was unfolding. His own stupidity prevented the coup. Texts to Meadows telling Trump to call of the attack was the last ditch effort to continue the coup. Hannity knew of the plan, that's why his text about concern of violence at the capital. Maybe the republican leaders did not tell Trump about their plan, knowing what an idiot he is. I'm probably completely wrong, but I like the idea of Trumps stupidity killing the plan to keep him in office.

We know for a fact that it was Giuliani who was organizing the "alternate electors" and who called Trump fanboys in Congress to stall for time.
The point of the Rally was for his supporters to start a bloody fight with BLM and AntiFa counter-protestors - who knew better than to show up, leaving the MAGA Mob no other target than Congress itself.

We have no evidence that the Old Guard of the GOP, namely McConnell and the like, had any active part in the charade of not confirming Biden's win.

No, sorry, this seems to be very much a Trump Coup from start to finish, with help from some Republicans to make it happen, and help from almost all Republicans to hush it up.
You could say that McConnell and co. are accessories after the fact.

 

[Paul2]

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.

You are asserting that my plan is political when my claim is that my plan will reduce the influence of power politics in redistricting. Merely saying my plan is political does not rebut the idea that it reduces politics.

 

[Paul2]

I have explained this to you several times already. Your plan will reduce the politics in the regular process of redistricting by piling it all up into a big heap of politics in changing the rules that govern redistricting.

That is patently false. My plan reduces the influence of politics, so the "big heap of politics" is a smaller heap of politics. The plan reduces the effect of partisan redistricting by minimizing the amount of partisan gerrymandering.

I have another method to propose, we do it based on area from now on. We'll fix the size of the districts so they all must have equal area. Would that be a non-political change to the redistricting process?

I think it would be, but I'm not sure, because maybe there's a way to configure things within that plan in a partisan way, but I'm speaking from ignorance. Fortunately, there is no way to configure things in my plan in the same way, as it is designed to minimize exactly that possibility.

At some point soon we should end this conversation, as I think we've both said what we want to say.

 

[shuttlt]

You are asserting that my plan is political when my claim is that my plan will reduce the influence of power politics in redistricting. Merely saying my plan is political does not rebut the idea that it reduces politics.

Is the game that I respond, you crop out the bit where I answer your question, and then you ask the question again?

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.

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.

I do think that this is one of the big political issues that separate people who believe in big government and the managerial state, from people who don't. The idea that all sorts of issues have rational, scientific solutions that if only we could drop the politics we would all agree on. It's a delusion.

 

[shuttlt]

That is patently false. My plan reduces the influence of politics, so the "big heap of politics" is a smaller heap of politics.

Again, you achieve this by moving the politics somewhere else and then trying to exclude it from the conversation.

The plan reduces the effect of partisan redistricting by minimizing the amount of partisan gerrymandering.

Sure. I've already told you that I agree with you that this would be the case. You achieve this, as I have said repeatedly, by moving the politics somewhere else and then excluding it from the conversation.

I think it would be, but I'm not sure, because maybe there's a way to configure things within that plan in a partisan way, but I'm speaking from ignorance. Fortunately, there is no way to configure things in my plan in the same way, as it is designed to minimize exactly that possibility.

Take the location in the state maximally far from any cities and put a pin there. Divide the state about that pin like a pie into how ever many equal area districts you need. No decision making involved. Absolutely politically neutral. Obviously it would be more skewed to favour rural communities than your plan, but by completely taking the decision making out of redistricting.... it would be even more politics free than yours and not carry over any politics from previous redistricting.

At some point soon we should end this conversation, as I think we've both said what we want to say.

We could end it after you address the criticism of your plan I've been repeating in every post, or you could just continue to ignore all the stuff about the politics having just been moved into the decision on the redistricting formula and ask me again whether I deny your plan removes the politics from redistricting.

 

[Paul2]

Is the game that I respond, you crop out the bit where I answer your question, and then you ask the question again?

I do not understand what you're saying about where this big heap of politics is. I truly don't get what your metaphor about a big heap of politics means, so can I ask you to re-state what you're saying with regard to the big heap of politics without metaphor, rhetoric, etc., as plainly as you can?

I do think that this is one of the big political issues that separate people who believe in big government and the managerial state, from people who don't. The idea that all sorts of issues have rational, scientific solutions that if only we could drop the politics we would all agree on. It's a delusion.

I don't believe that all sorts of issues have rational, scientific solutions, necessarily (I've never considered that claim).

 

[Paul2]

Again, you achieve this by moving the politics somewhere else and then trying to exclude it from the conversation.

Exactly what politics got moved and is being excluded? Are you saying that the decision to institute my plan would be a political decision? Yes, it would be, but let's not equivocate on "politics." It is a vastly different political decision to, say, ensure that the elecorate's franchise is expressed than to ensure that the electorate's franchise is *not* expressed, which is exactly the issue with gerrymandering. One level, yes, they are both political decision, but on another level, they could not be more different, and that difference makes all the difference.

Take the location in the state maximally far from any cities and put a pin there. Divide the state about that pin like a pie into how ever many equal area districts you need. No decision making involved. Absolutely politically neutral. Obviously it would be more skewed to favour rural communities than your plan, but by completely taking the decision making out of redistricting.... it would be even more politics free than yours and not carry over any politics from previous redistricting.

It is an essential part of redistricting to have each district have the same number of people in them so any one person's vote is not worth more, so to speak, than any other person's vote. That's a different type of problem, admittedly, than gerrymandering, but that's the problem with your scenario.

We could end it after you address the criticism of your plan I've been repeating in every post, or you could just continue to ignore all the stuff about the politics having just been moved into the decision on the redistricting formula and ask me again whether I deny your plan removes the politics from redistricting.

I've asked you to clarify this point in another post, so I won't duplicate the issue here.

 

[shuttlt]

I do not understand what you're saying about where this big heap of politics is. I truly don't get what your metaphor about a big heap of politics means, so can I ask you to re-state what you're saying with regard to the big heap of politics without metaphor, rhetoric, etc., as plainly as you can?

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.

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.

For the reasons given above, you are taking the politics that you don't like in the repeated process of redistricting and instead having a hugely political rule change to permanently limit redistricting.

I don't believe that all sorts of issues have rational, scientific solutions, necessarily (I've never considered that claim).

I thought you might say something like that I was speaking more generally than just about you.

 

[Paul2]

For the reasons given above, you are taking the politics that you don't like in the repeated process of redistricting and instead having a hugely political rule change to permanently limit redistricting.

I've rebutted your point here in a post I just posted, so we can continue that issue there.

 

[shuttlt]

Exactly what politics got moved and is being excluded? Are you saying that the decision to institute my plan would be a political decision? Yes, it would be, but let's not equivocate on "politics." It is a vastly different political decision to, say, ensure that the electorate's franchise is expressed than to ensure that the electorate's franchise is *not* expressed, which is exactly the issue with gerrymandering.

No. That it is such a critical issue that the district boundaries don't cause the % representation in the legislature to differ very greatly from the popular vote, and how much of a difference is a problem is your political opinion. You can't just assume your political opinions as the neutral starting place.

One level, yes, they are both political decision, but on another level, they could not be more different, and that difference makes all the difference.

Only because in the one case you are representing your political opinion as somehow neutral, and in the other you feel people are being partisan. They are both the same kind of political decision. Unless everybody shares your assumptions about fair districting, you can't just declare your notion of fairness to be the apolitical one.

It is an essential part of redistricting to have each district have the same number of people in them so any one person's vote is not worth more, so to speak, than any other person's vote.

I think you typically see +-5-10% in the district sizes. Between states the difference in district size can be pretty large, particularly when you factor in states with a single representative. It absolutely isn't essential that all districts be the same population size. I think there is broad enough agreement that it's a good thing to aim for such that it isn't politically contentious. I don't think there is anything essential about it.

This is going off into the long grass though. The point is that any change we can think of to redistricting law would be political.

That's a different type of problem, admittedly, than gerrymandering, but that's the problem with your scenario.

The problem with any way of changing the redistricting rules would be that it would be political. The only thing that stops my equal area idea being adopted is that it wouldn't have political support. That is the same difficulty your idea has.

 

[shuttlt]

I've rebutted your point here in a post I just posted, so we can continue that issue there.

Which post?

This one?

Exactly what politics got moved and is being excluded? Are you saying that the decision to institute my plan would be a political decision? Yes, it would be, but let's not equivocate on "politics." It is a vastly different political decision to, say, ensure that the elecorate's franchise is expressed than to ensure that the electorate's franchise is *not* expressed, which is exactly the issue with gerrymandering. One level, yes, they are both political decision, but on another level, they could not be more different, and that difference makes all the difference.

 

[shuttlt]

That isn't a rebuttal. The objection to gerrymandering is essentially that it makes the district boundaries unfair. You want to correct that by setting up a rule to make the boundaries better approximate fairness. The problem is that in neither case is there an agreement about what would constitute fair districting. All you've done is change the location of the problem, but the problem is the same.

 

[Paul2]

Which post?

This one?

Weird! I see "This one?" in my reply function, but not when just viewing your post.

Anyway, I meant post #489, but I haven't checked that, maybe I made a mistake, sorry if I did.

 

[shuttlt]

Weird! I see "This one?" in my reply function, but not when just viewing your post.

Anyway, I meant post #489, but I haven't checked that, maybe I made a mistake, sorry if I did.

OK, so I quoted the right post.

I'll reiterate my response:

That isn't a rebuttal. The objection to gerrymandering is essentially that it makes the district boundaries unfair. You want to correct that by setting up a rule to make the boundaries better approximate fairness. The problem is that in neither case is there an agreement about what would constitute fair districting. All you've done is change the location of the problem, but the problem is the same.

 

[Paul2]

That isn't a rebuttal. The objection to gerrymandering is essentially that it makes the district boundaries unfair.

"Unfair" is way too general, which allows for the actual issue to be missed. The actual issue is that it gives a partisan advantage beyond the will of the electorate (as far as that can be calculated), which is the whole point of an election. That is certainly unfair, but "unfair" doesn't articulate what the problem is.

You want to correct that by setting up a rule to make the boundaries better approximate fairness. The problem is that in neither case is there an agreement about what would constitute fair districting.

But that disagreement is not a rational one, it's a political one; my plan rationally, and in reality, is a plan that reduces gerrymandering.

All you've done is change the location of the problem, but the problem is the same.

Haven't you already agreed that my plan would reduce partisan influence and advantage in redistricting? How is that merely changing the location of the problem? It actually *solves* the problem to some greater degree.

 

[shuttlt]

"Unfair" is way too general, which allows for the actual issue to be missed. The actual issue is that it gives a partisan advantage beyond the will of the electorate (as far as that can be calculated), which is the whole point of an election. That is certainly unfair, but "unfair" doesn't articulate what the problem is.

Is there agreement that the composition of the legislature should match the popular vote? I'm not sure there is. We've seen this argument about the electoral college and there didn't seem to be agreement then. You can't do an end run on that disagreement by treating your side of the arguments views as the neutral position.

But that disagreement is not a rational one, it's a political one; my plan rationally, and in reality, is a plan that reduces gerrymandering.

It's a plan that solves a disagreement about what constitutes fairness in redistricting by imposing one sides notion of fairness in redistricting, calling it fair and then acting confused when you are told you haven't solved the fundamental problem.

Wasn't this whole thing originally about a claim that gerrymandering had made the states so skewed that they were locked up beyond hope and even a 2/3 majority wouldn't be able to capture the legislature.... then nobody was able to find any states that actually looked like that? I think that was the fundamental point to me and the link back to the main thread.

Haven't you already agreed that my plan would reduce partisan influence and advantage in redistricting? How is that merely changing the location of the problem? It actually *solves* the problem to some greater degree.

Sure it solves it. Coming up with formulas for redistricting that reduce the scope for gerrymandering isn't hard. Coming up with a redistricting formulas that one side will agree on isn't hard. Coming up with a redistricting formula that both sides will agree on is hard. That is the part that I don't think you've done. Saying "my sides is the rational side and what I think is fair should be seen by everybody as fair" doesn't help.

 

[Paul2]

Is there agreement that the composition of the legislature should match the popular vote? I'm not sure there is. We've seen this argument about the electoral college and there didn't seem to be agreement then. You can't do an end run on that disagreement by treating your side of the arguments views as the neutral position.

The results of a democratic vote reflect the will of the electorate (within a margin of error). Gerrymandering is the attempt to subvert that process through redistricting.

The electoral college is not this type of issue, in my opinion, because some claim that it produces a separation and balance of power, the Senate reining in the presumably more populist, direct-democracy tendencies of the House. Other say it was merely put there for the slave states, but this is a whole 'nother issue.

It's a plan that solves a disagreement about what constitutes fairness in redistricting by imposing one sides notion of fairness in redistricting, calling it fair and then acting confused when you are told you haven't solved the fundamental problem.

Without rebutting my point about "fairness" being too vague, why would you re-iterate your point about fairness? All that will do create the need for me to re-iterate my point about the problem with "fairness" being vague. this doesn't contribute productively to our conversation.

Wasn't this whole thing originally about a claim that gerrymandering had made the states so skewed that they were locked up beyond hope and even a 2/3 majority wouldn't be able to capture the legislature.... then nobody was able to find any states that actually looked like that? I think that was the fundamental point to me and the link back to the main thread.

That was never my issue, others here brought that up.

Sure it solves it. Coming up with formulas for redistricting that reduce the scope for gerrymandering isn't hard. Coming up with a redistricting formulas that one side will agree on isn't hard. Coming up with a redistricting formula that both sides will agree on is hard.

Agreed.

That is the part that I don't think you've done. Saying "my sides is the rational side and what I think is fair should be seen by everybody as fair" doesn't help.

But that merely says you and I disagree, it doesn't prove that my plan isn't the fair one. What if my plan *is* the rational one? The only way we find that out is by getting into the details of whether it is rational or not, and just saying that "you say you're the one being rational" doesn't do that. It dismisses the possibility of my plan being rational without rationally evaluating it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Is there agreement that the composition of the legislature should match the popular vote? I'm not sure there is.

Agreement with who?

Even if there is nothing in legislation, the constitution, or inter-party agreements that "the legislature should match the popular vote", I think most people would assume that there should be at least some correlation (given the fact that the U.S. is a democracy. And, you know, the whole "All men are created equal" thing.)

It's a plan that solves a disagreement about what constitutes fairness in redistricting by imposing one sides notion of fairness in redistricting, calling it fair and then acting confused when you are told you haven't solved the fundamental problem.

There is a difference between "Here is an algorithm based only on math and that has no human input that provides an electoral map, which favors one side because they have the more popular policies" (i.e. what the democrats want), and "Here is an electoral map that we have drawn by hand to marginalize our opponents so that we can maintain control, not because our policies are more popular, but because we don't care what the general population wants and just want power (i.e. what the republicans want).

The democrats are not asking "let is redraw the map so we can do the same sort of dirty packing and cracking the republicans have been doing", they are saying "lets use algorithms to draw maps and then parties will have to rely more on their policies".

Wasn't this whole thing originally about a claim that gerrymandering had made the states so skewed that they were locked up beyond hope and even a 2/3 majority wouldn't be able to capture the legislature.... then nobody was able to find any states that actually looked like that? I think that was the fundamental point to me and the link back to the main thread.

Not sure about the 2/3rds couldn't solve gerrymandering case (although it is technically possible). But we do have this:

From: Business Insider
Michigan provides a good example of how the formula works....voters statewide split their ballots essentially 50-50 between Republican and Democratic state House candidates. Yet Republicans won 57 percent of the House seats, claiming 63 seats to the Democrats’ 47.


So that's a swing of 16 seats (or 15% of the total) based not on "who is more popular in the state", but "How is the electoral map drawn for the state".