What's the stupidest thing a nation has ever done?

[treadmilldude]

Jumper - as a mod - Can you move your US infestation of a Brit oriented thread elsewhere, please  ?


Moby, Jumper is no longer a Mod. Dan removed his mod status some time ago, but forgot to remove the title of Mod from Jumper's Handle. Seems like that should be a very quick, easy fix to Jumper's status.

[Anotherkiwi]

I've been watching US politics for a while and this has been happening since before I was born. Obama gave out Ambassadorships to his top fundraisers who had never even been to the country before. All presidents do this

I know that - one of them came here, but actually turned out OK.    However, ambassadors from every country have been appointed, not elected, since time immemorial.  I can't recall any President in recent times who has stacked his Cabinet the way that Trump has.  Again, though, that may simply be because of the emphasis in the news media being somewhat different now from what it was in the past.

It comes back, though, to the fundamental point of my question - WHY does the USA allow this to happen, when no DEMOCRACY does?

Hiring successful people to do things is much smarter than hiring failures, communists and idiots which other administrations have done.

I have no problem with HIRING successful people - but you don't HIRE people to run your government: you elect them (although your equivalent of the Whitehall mandarins would probably disagree  ).  You also don't appoint people to head agencies when they are well-known for opposing the basic tenets of what you're asking them to run (the most obvious example being Scott Pruitt, who was/is suing the agency he was appointed to head!  ).

[2tallbill]

Yes, but creating the extremely odd shaped districts like the one depicted earlier is a form of disenfranchising people is abusive and designed to dilute voters enough to get a particular party's representative elected when it otherwise wouldn't happen.  I don't think there is a good case for gerrymandering so it should be combated when it crops up.

Fathertime!

It's the shape of Houston. Only Houston is Blue, All the area outside Houston is
Red, cities grow to their own shapes and follow terrain hills, highways, rivers
and valleys, which don't make nice little rectangles on maps. If they bit off a
chunk of Houston and put it in another voting district politicians on both sides
would howl. The communities outside of Houston don't want to be represented
by a "big city politician" and the residents of Houston don't want to be represented
by a countryboy yokel.



You remove the incorporated city of Houston and you get the voting district
that you showed earlier. 

[fathertime]

It's the shape of Houston. Only Houston is Blue, All the area outside Houston is
Red, cities grow to their own shapes and follow terrain hills, highways, rivers
and valleys, which don't make nice little rectangles on maps. If they bit off a
chunk of Houston and put it in another voting district politicians on both sides
would howl. The communities outside of Houston don't want to be represented
by a "big city politician" and the residents of Houston don't want to be represented
by a countryboy yokel.

That is an argument used when gerrymandering, but often isn't  the case. 

This particular analysis discusses how republicans have been able to dilute the vote just enough, and win a few more districts by strategically gerrymandering the districts in Texas.  It is indeed happening, and would happen more if not for people pointing it out. 

Analysis: Texas Gave House GOP Biggest Gerrymandering Bump

A data analysis by Associated Press suggests that the GOP may have won as many as 22 additional congressional seats than expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country, and Texas had a big role in it.
Voting districts drawn by Texas’ Republican-controlled Legislature helped the party win nearly four more U.S. House seats than it otherwise would have in the last election, which was more than any other state, an Associated Press analysis of the results of federal and state legislative races found.
Gerrymandering, in which the party in power alters the electoral maps to favor itself, helps explain why the GOP continues to be so dominant in Texas despite the rapid growth of the state’s Hispanic population, which tends to back Democrats. The findings also underscore years of federal court rulings that have found Texas’ electoral maps to be unconstitutional and discriminatory.....

http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2017/06/25/206090/analysis-texas-gave-house-gop-biggest-gerrymandering-bump/

Fathertime!

[jone]

These discussions about our old friend, Gerry Mander, are kinda interesting.  The truth is that in the seventies and eighties, the Republicans were the ones complaining. 

There are many arguments surrounding what makes a Congressional (or State legislative) district.  If I look at the map above, looking at it from a purely geographical perspective, one would deduce it is gerrymandered.  But there are many different factors that go into creating a district. 

I believe Bill tried to reflect that Houston, the city of, represents one type of constituent - and the suburbs, which comprise another constituency, represent another.

Congressional districts are designed from the census.  But, guess what?  Cities which make up a Congressional District, i.e. Houston, are made up of constituencies that rarely vote.  If you track such CD's you'll see a turnout that is almost fifty percent lower than non urban CDs.    Now, imagine that you balance, through the census, the CD so that it is equal parts urban and suburban.  The suburban part would dominate due to the sparse voting patterns of the urban area. 

I reviewed panels of judges decisions on reapportionment.  These decisions were partially based on voter tendencies, and, sometimes included districts such as the suburban Houston district. 

Ultimately the simplest way to get uniformity in district design is to have state legislatures and state houses (governorships) reflect two party decisions.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have never controlled fewer state houses or state legislatures.  So their big complaint becomes gerrymandering. 

[jone]

Republican Governors in Red, Democratic Governors in Blue.  Alaska has an independent governor.



State legislatures controlled by party.  Republicans are in Red.  Democrats are in Blue.  Neither state controls both houses = purple.



The last map shows the two previous maps combined.   If a state is shaded, it means that the Governor and the State Legislature are both controlled by a political party.

The above two images represent why congressional districts heavily favor Republicans at this time.  However, many states have judicial slates that review congressional districts. 

I have heard the argument that minorities are not proportionally represented.  But that is becoming less and less the case as more and more people vote for the best man/woman without looking at race, sexual orientation, age, etc. as a qualifier.

[BC]

Jone,

with the tools available today, a line can be drawn up to your doorstep, include or exclude your neighbor to define and swing a district.  A huge amount of information is known about each household and even computer user within.  This in addition to public voter data that includes your political affiliation and address.  It's not sci-fi anymore and very real science.  Every time you use your 'puter or smartphone you're advertising who you are and even what you think is extrapolated from your browsing habits.  Even the location and spread of the flu is easily monitored by folks searching symptoms and remedies.  Algorithms connect the dots quite easily nowadays, even your fav porn genre.

[jone]

BC,

This is not new data.  It has been in the public domain for years.  When I was growing up, I used to watch political operatives walk in and 'sniff' a district.  They would get within three percentage points by using their techniques.

Today, that is all digital.  But it doesn't remove the fact - or explain - that State Legislatures and Governorships, those entities which determine how Congressional Districts are determined, are made up, primarily, of Republicans.

The Democrats still don't have a ground game for winning the governments of the States.  Here we are, voting day, in what should be two safe governorships today, New Jersey and Virginia.  The Democrats have majorities in both states, yet Virginia is rated a toss-up.  Why is that?  Because the Democrats cannot get their base out to vote.

If the Supreme Court finds in favor of the Wisconsin lawsuit that claims that partisan redistricting is too political, then there are no possible outcomes in the future which will not include court challenges to every State Legislature and Congressional District.  34 Governorships are controlled by the Republicans.  I submit to you that those governorships were not due to gerrymandered districts. 

If you read my comments from before the elections, I would support controls on politicians.  I would like Term Limits on Congressmen and Senators.

[jone]

One more thought:  The Wisconsin protest is about State Legislative Districts, particularly the State Assembly, not Congressional Districts.  In Congressional districts, it is rare that a zip code is represented by more than one Congressperson.  Those that are, are represented by two or less.  There are many restrictions already in place for determining Congressional districts.

[fathertime]

The Democrats have majorities in both states, yet Virginia is rated a toss-up.  Why is that?  Because the Democrats cannot get their base out to vote.

If you are a Democrat that is a problem, if you are a Republican it is a godsend.  The easier it is to vote, the worse it is for Republicans.  I would be curious to see if the results changed drastically if walk in voting could take place over a period of a few days rather than 1 day, most of which is during work hours. 

Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

These discussions about our old friend, Gerry Mander, are kinda interesting.  The truth is that in the seventies and eighties, the Republicans were the ones complaining. 

So if it was a valid complaint when republicans were mentioning it, isn't still a valid complaint when the Democrats bring it up?   

Fathertime! 

[BC]

BC,

This is not new data.  It has been in the public domain for years.  When I was growing up, I used to watch political operatives walk in and 'sniff' a district.  They would get within three percentage points by using their techniques.

Today, that is all digital.  But it doesn't remove the fact - or explain - that State Legislatures and Governorships, those entities which determine how Congressional Districts are determined, are made up, primarily, of Republicans.

Today, with the resolution offered one can likely get well within one percentage point.

The Democrats still don't have a ground game for winning the governments of the States.  Here we are, voting day, in what should be two safe governorships today, New Jersey and Virginia.  The Democrats have majorities in both states, yet Virginia is rated a toss-up.  Why is that?  Because the Democrats cannot get their base out to vote.

Virginia is ranked as one of the most gerrymandered states in the country both on the congressional and state levels based on lack of compactness and contiguity of its districts.[1] Virginia is ranked the 5th worst in the country.[2] Throughout the Commonwealth, counties and cities are being broken in half or into multiple pieces to create heavily partisan districts.

http://www.onevirginia2021.org/redistricting/

If the Supreme Court finds in favor of the Wisconsin lawsuit that claims that partisan redistricting is too political, then there are no possible outcomes in the future which will not include court challenges to every State Legislature and Congressional District.  34 Governorships are controlled by the Republicans.  I submit to you that those governorships were not due to gerrymandered districts. 

Indeed, challenges already abound, and will likely increase. 

If you read my comments from before the elections, I would support controls on politicians.  I would like Term Limits on Congressmen and Senators.

Yes, I did note your preferences.  I'd add the single subject rule.

[BC]

One more thought:  The Wisconsin protest is about State Legislative Districts, particularly the State Assembly, not Congressional Districts.  In Congressional districts, it is rare that a zip code is represented by more than one Congressperson.  Those that are, are represented by two or less.  There are many restrictions already in place for determining Congressional districts.

Challenges to Congressional districts are also awaiting SCOTUS decisions before proceeding. See link above.  If 'unfair' gerrymandering is possible with technology, fair and more impartial districts can be drawn using the same data and software.  Nothing wrong with leveling the playing field or?

[jone]

Challenges to Congressional districts are also awaiting SCOTUS decisions before proceeding. See link above.  If 'unfair' gerrymandering is possible with technology, fair and more impartial districts can be drawn using the same data and software.  Nothing wrong with leveling the playing field or?

Hey, BC,

I had an interesting read today regarding Cook's evaluation of each Congressional District.  You might want to Google the same.  In it, it has the propensity for each Congressional District to vote Democrat or Republican. 

The reason I bring it up is that, with the exception of some inner city outliers, all districts seemed to be represented according to their populace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

You should also know that many of the districts are set up by judicial commissions.  But, even those are often thought to be favoring one political party over another. 

[JayH]

Interesting story on a way forward


Let the People Pick the President

More important, decades of polling have found that Americans of all stripes would prefer that the president be chosen directly by the people and not by 538 party functionaries six weeks after Election Day.
How can red states be persuaded to sign on and give all their citizens a voice? Some, like Georgia and Arizona, may not stay red for much longer. But even deep-red states would benefit from the infusion of attention and cash from campaigns seeking to rustle up every vote they can find.

This problem isn’t going away; if anything it’s going to get worse as Americans continue to cluster. Half the population now lives in just nine states. It’s time for states that have been on the fence about the national popular-vote compact to get off and sign on. Connecticut, Oregon and Delaware have all come close to passing the compact in recent years; they should get it done now. Yes, they’re three reliably blue states representing 17 electoral votes among them, but every vote counts.


http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/elections-electoral-college-voting.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

[BillyB]

Half the population now lives in just nine states. It’s time for states that have been on the fence about the national popular-vote compact to get off and sign on

If things change to popular vote, politicians would only need to appease people in nine states to win the presidential election. Most federal money would go to those nine states to keep those voters happy. Then we'll have what Europe is going through in some areas and that is states/regions would want to vote for independence.


Funny thing is the liberal editorial board of the liberal paper NY Times said the electoral college was an idea by small states to get a little bit bigger say to who become president. Read between the lines. The electoral college was an idea by Democrats. It worked out for them well in the past. Now it's not working out so they want to change the rules to favor themselves. How about they go back to those small states and try to win them over? Seems like they want the popular vote to be the norm which would leave those smaller states further behind.

[BC]

Hey, BC,

I had an interesting read today regarding Cook's evaluation of each Congressional District.  You might want to Google the same.  In it, it has the propensity for each Congressional District to vote Democrat or Republican. 

The reason I bring it up is that, with the exception of some inner city outliers, all districts seemed to be represented according to their populace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

You should also know that many of the districts are set up by judicial commissions.  But, even those are often thought to be favoring one political party over another.

Thanks Jone, will do some hunting and pecking.  I see this index has been around a while, guessing not specific enough to convince SCOTUS in the past.  Maybe the new systems that allows a much more precise measurement will allow them to form a decision.

Here's a pretty good video of some 'on the ground' effects.

http://tvdrame.com/56-watch-video-vice-season-5-episode-26-watch-online-full-hd.html

[ML]

If things change to popular vote, politicians would only need to appease people in nine states to win the presidential election. Most federal money would go to those nine states to keep those voters happy. Then we'll have what Europe is going through in some areas and that is states/regions would want to vote for independence.

Vert astute observation Billy.

Reminds me somewhat of the old adage . . .

Never think about tearing down a fence until you research why it was built.

[Anotherkiwi]

...The electoral college was an idea by Democrats.

Bollocks.  The electoral college is described in the original Constitution, when the Democrats didn't exist.

[jone]

Bollocks.  The electoral college is described in the original Constitution, when the Democrats didn't exist.

Well done, Kiwi old boy!  Impressive knowledge of history, in spite of your shortfall of being born on North Island.   Did you learn as much of your own nation's past at Te Papa Tongarewa

[BillyB]

Bollocks.  The electoral college is described in the original Constitution, when the Democrats didn't exist.

You didn't understand the NY Times article. They said the electoral college was to appease slaveholders. Slaveholders were mostly located in the less populated states down South where liberals resided. They eventually created the Democrat party.


When Republicans gave blacks freedom and later the right to vote, only then did Democrats decide Black votes are worth pursuing.

[jone]

Kiwi understood it very well.  It is Billy that didn't understand it.

1.  The 'Article' was an Editorial, not representing fact.

2.  Many of the arguments, as is typical of an Op Ed piece from the NYTimes, were partisan arguments.  No counter arguments were present.

3.  The Democratic Party was not formed until 1828.   Well after the Constitution was was signed in 1787.  Jeffersonian Republicans (what the Democrats were called before a political party was formed) did not appear until 1792.

4.  The reference to Slave Holders was to how many ELECTORS a slave state should receive based on their slave populations.  It was the 3/5's rule which meant that slaves should count as 3/5's of a white person when calculating electoral college.  This rule was void when slavery was abolished.

Kiwi's statement that Billy's post was Bollocks was that Billy referenced the Democratic party as an influence over the political process that created the Electoral College.   

[2tallbill]

I know that - one of them came here, but actually turned out OK.    However, ambassadors from every country have been appointed, not elected, since time immemorial.  I can't recall any President in recent times who has stacked his Cabinet the way that Trump has.  Again, though, that may simply be because of the emphasis in the news media being somewhat different now from what it was in the past.

It comes back, though, to the fundamental point of my question - WHY does the USA allow this to happen, when no DEMOCRACY does?

I have no problem with HIRING successful people - but you don't HIRE people to run your government: you elect them (although your equivalent of the Whitehall mandarins would probably disagree  ).  You also don't appoint people to head agencies when they are well-known for opposing the basic tenets of what you're asking them to run (the most obvious example being Scott Pruitt, who was/is suing the agency he was appointed to head!  ).

In the USA we have a constitutional republic not a democracy. In the USA
we elect a president. Then the president appoints 4000 people to run the
administration. That's how we do it and how we've done it. That's how all
previous presidents have done it and how we will do it in the future.

How other countries like to do things is up the the citizens of their respective
countries. We have three different branches of government not 30 or 40. The
president runs the executive branch and we don't elect 39 different people
with differing agenda's to run the executive branch.


http://presidentialtransition.org/blog/posts/160316_help-wanted-4000-appointees.php

Obama weaponized the EPA. They were trying to control private land ownership
through several different means none of which were allowed by law. 13 states 
were suing the EPA over it. Obama couldn't get what he wanted passed through
congress so he just told his various agencies to do it anyway. 

On October 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
temporarily blocked the Obama land grab nationwide to deliberate whether
the (waters of the US) rule was permissible under federal law. Prior to this
decision, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota
issued an order temporarily blocking the EPA's water rule in 13 states in
August 2015
http://ballotpedia.org/Waters_of_the_United_States_rule


The EPA's big land grab
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/246408-the-epas-big-land-grab

States sue over EPA's unprecedented land grab
http://www.atr.org/states-sue-over-epas-unprecedented-land-grab


EPA Will Repeal Obama’s Land-Grabbing Water Rule
http://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/epa-will-repeal-obama-s-land-grabbing-water-rule


What You Need to Know About the EPA/Corps Water Rule: It’s a Power Grab and an Attack on Property Rights
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/what-you-need-know-about-the-epacorps-water-rule-its-power-grab-and-attack

[mhr7]

If things change to popular vote, politicians would only need to appease people in nine states to win the presidential election.

This is already pretty much happening. Candidates tend to spend the majority of their time and money in only 8-10 battleground states where the voters are split.

[jone]

This is already pretty much happening. Candidates tend to spend the majority of their time and money in only 8-10 battleground states where the voters are split.

Yeah.  Who woulda thot to conduct campaigns in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?  Before 2016, apparently not Hillary.  She found out too late.  Do any of you remember last year when I was wondering why Hillary, the Obamas, Kaine and everyone else Democrat were winding up in Pennsylvania on election eve?  Her polls showed a massive shift in the electorate in the last two weeks of the campaign.   

Hillary tried to tip Arizona and Georgia.  Trump played around with New Mexico.

Your 8 - 10?

Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada?  That was conventional wisdom before the election.