Midterm Election Gameday Thread

[Tiberius]

52 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 

The current system marginalizes people of one political persuasion based off of which party is in power when the lines are drawn. If you have a large urban center that has 50% of the population of the state but only gets 25% of the representation how is that not marginalizing 50% of the state? 

The Senate basically does that very thing for the country as a whole. South Dakota gets to Senators the same as NY. We the people? 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The Senate basically does that very thing for the country as a whole. South Dakota gets to Senators the same as NY. We the people? 

How many Senators does California get?

 

to?

 

too?

 

two?

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The Senate basically does that very thing for the country as a whole. South Dakota gets to Senators the same as NY. We the people? 

 

The House represents the people, the Senate represents the states. 

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, the system we have isn't perfect, but what you propose is a non-solution which causes more problems than it solves. 

 

What I propose is using algorithms and technology to better draw districts. You can set the conditions to draw districts based on what you think best fits to represent the people. Yes there is some subjectivity to it but as you said there is no perfect solution.   So if you want you can use technology to draw districts that are more politically homogeneous if you feel that fits the conditions of the House better you can do that. To not use the tools of modern technology and rely on partisan pols when partisan pols have been shown to draw districts based on what benefits their party as opposed to where populations of people are is not a system that makes sense. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

The House represents the people, the Senate represents the states. 

 

An understanding of US civics should be mandatory in order to achieve the franchise.

 

Why on Earth would "flyover country" agree to remain in the United States if they were to be dictated to by urban centers on the coasts?

[billsfan89]

27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The Senate basically does that very thing for the country as a whole. South Dakota gets to Senators the same as NY. We the people? 

 

That's another conversation, I don't have as much of an issue with the Senate since its there to make sure each state has a voice. But in Congress we basically have corrupt parties deciding how people get represented and it has results that are empirically Undemocratic. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

What I propose is using algorithms and technology to better draw districts. You can set the conditions to draw districts based on what you think best fits to represent the people. Yes there is some subjectivity to it but as you said there is no perfect solution.   So if you want you can use technology to draw districts that are more politically homogeneous if you feel that fits the conditions of the House better you can do that. To not use the tools of modern technology and rely on partisan pols when partisan pols have been shown to draw districts based on what benefits their party as opposed to where populations of people are is not a system that makes sense. 

 

I'm not interested in relinquishing any part of my sovereignty to technology or AI.

 

That in and of itself is massively problematic, as algorithms are not accountable to the electorate.

 

Every aspect of our electoral process needs to be managed by people, flawed as they may be.

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That's another conversation, I don't have as much of an issue with the Senate since its there to make sure each state has a voice. But in Congress we basically have corrupt parties deciding how people get represented and it has results that are empirically Undemocratic. 

 

If you want to ban, or even criminalize, political parties in government I'm with you.

[Foxx]

we could start with banning any/all lobbyists.

[Kevbeau]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm not interested in relinquishing any part of my sovereignty to technology or AI.

 

This. You can make algorithms/models say whatever the hell you want and less than honest folks will hide behind an ‘unbiased math’ cloak

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm not interested in relinquishing any part of my sovereignty to technology or AI.

 

That in and of itself is massively problematic, as algorithms are not accountable to the electorate.

 

Every aspect of our electoral process needs to be managed by people, flawed as they may be.

 

If you want to ban, or even criminalize, political parties in government I'm with you.

 

Your assessment of using technology as a tool to better draw districts in a less corrupt and better representative manner as handing over sovereignty to AI is very hyperbolic and dramatic. The government uses technology as a tool for far more important things and last time I checked Skynet is not in control of our government. Humans would still have control and be able to manage the system. The current model of doing things is so corrupt and we have the technology to use as a foundation to better shape the system so what is the argument against it? 

 

As far as banning political parties I am not sure that would solve it. Humans are clique and tribal based. So even if you took the formality out of it, the same things would still happen. If you put 435 people in a work environment there are always cliques and centers of power along with rivalries and other issues that are just inherent to human nature esp in an environment that is power and cooperation based.

Just now, Kevbeau said:

 

This. You can make algorithms/models say whatever the hell you want and less than honest folks will hide behind an ‘unbiased math’ cloak

 

That's a bit misleading. You can check how an algorithm is programmed and have various controls to it. You can mount a legal challenge as to how an algorithm is programmed and step by step go through each line of code. Whereas the current system has no such paper trail other than this is how the party in power decided to do it. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

Your assessment of using technology as a tool to better draw districts in a less corrupt and better representative manner as handing over sovereignty to AI is very hyperbolic and dramatic. The government uses technology as a tool for far more important things and last time I checked Skynet is not in control of our government. Humans would still have control and be able to manage the system. The current model of doing things is so corrupt and we have the technology to use as a foundation to better shape the system so what is the argument against it? 

 

As far as banning political parties I am not sure that would solve it. Humans are clique and tribal based. So even if you took the formality out of it, the same things would still happen. If you put 435 people in a work environment there are always cliques and centers of power along with rivalries and other issues that are just inherent to human nature esp in an environment that is power and cooperation based.

 

There is no more important aspect of government than the franchise.

 

The franchise is the underlying foundation of human freedom, as it is the right to self determination which allows us to construct a government which serves to protect our rights.  Without that, we have nothing, and I will not entertain any argument which takes the franchise out of the hands of individuals who can be held accountable.

 

I also have a problem with corruption, so let's focus on the problem, and ferret out corruption.  In a representative government people get the government they deserve.

 

I will not work around the edges of the real problems, giving consent to non-solutions which introduce new problems.

 

Corruption is a problem we can agree exists.  Let's address it directly.

[billsfan89]

46 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

There is no more important aspect of government than the franchise.

 

The franchise is the underlying foundation of human freedom, as it is the right to self determination which allows us to construct a government which serves to protect our rights.  Without that, we have nothing, and I will not entertain any argument which takes the franchise out of the hands of individuals who can be held accountable.

 

I also have a problem with corruption, so let's focus on the problem, and ferret out corruption.  In a representative government people get the government they deserve.

 

I will not work around the edges of the real problems, giving consent to non-solutions which introduce new problems.

 

Corruption is a problem we can agree exists.  Let's address it directly.

 

The government uses machines to count votes, if your argument is that there should be no involvement of technology in the franchise of voting then we are far beyond that point. Having humans draw the lines based off of almost no criteria is not the solution and using technology to help implement the HUMAN parameters of how we should be drawing our representative maps isn't some handing over of sovereignty more than using machines to count votes is. 

 

If you want to fetter out corruption in this instance use the technology that is best available to humans to do so. As I said you can check each line of code and how an algorithm is programmed and challenge each and every single aspect of that in a court composed of humans. You can't have that same level of scrutiny with human subjectivity. I am not sure if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how algorithms and the technology proposed to solve the problem is being implemented or you are just willfully ignorant of why the technology is needed and what human involvement is in the technology. 

[Passepartout]

Democrats are doing everything to stall the process. And that they are not pleased with nothing.  Numbers do not lie. Polls are another thing. It is called dirty tricks.

[keepthefaith]

30 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The government uses machines to count votes, if your argument is that there should be no involvement of technology in the franchise of voting then we are far beyond that point. Having humans draw the lines based off of almost no criteria is not the solution and using technology to help implement the HUMAN parameters of how we should be drawing our representative maps isn't some handing over of sovereignty more than using machines to count votes is. 

 

If you want to fetter out corruption in this instance use the technology that is best available to humans to do so. As I said you can check each line of code and how an algorithm is programmed and challenge each and every single aspect of that in a court composed of humans. You can't have that same level of scrutiny with human subjectivity. I am not sure if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how algorithms and the technology proposed to solve the problem is being implemented or you are just willfully ignorant of why the technology is needed and what human involvement is in the technology. 

 

The use of technology to count votes is fine but there has to be a backup method for verification.  A technology alone system will absolutely be abused at some point if it hasn't been already.  That and procedures to tabulate, verify and archive votes have to be air tight and within short windows of time and all aspects of administering voting should be reporting up to more than 1 individual representing both (or more) parties in each district. 

[billsfan89]

3 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

The use of technology to count votes is fine but there has to be a backup method for verification.  A technology alone system will absolutely be abused at some point if it hasn't been already.  That and procedures to tabulate, verify and archive votes have to be air tight and within short windows of time and all aspects of administering voting should be reporting up to more than 1 individual representing both (or more) parties in each district. 

 

I agree with there needing to be some sort of paper receipt for voting but there is so much technology involved in how we vote and technology is used so much that I don't think there is a sound logical argument against the use of algorithms to help determine voting maps. Algorithms are programmed by humans and the parameters of how the map is drawn is once again defined by humans. 

 

The models and prototypes proposed define election maps by using data such as registered voters in areas and municipal boundaries. Once again it is much easier to challenge a line of code than it is to challenge a back door political deal. I just don't think there really exists a sound argument against the use of technology as opposed to politicians to draw our district lines. You know the current model has failed when 47% of people vote for one party but that party only happens to get 23% of the representatives. 

[boyst]

NC has been Dominated by Democratic control until Obama was kind enough enough to restore balance to the system and make people realize Democrats are disgusting.

 

Since then NC Dems are fighting back and Berger and Forrest are kicking ass. Cooper is a cucked B word who watched some of his biggest efforts as AG get destroyed in Federal court.   His only effort remaining is the do not call list which... Clearly doesn't work. NC has no one to compete against him and he is being embarrassed for not being able to politic.  McCrory may bid again in 2020, too.

[Azalin]

9 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 How there isn't an universal algorithm to draw maps in ways that make sense and avoid partisan pols running the system is shocking. 

 

9 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Your argument would have more weight if districts were drawn to have equal partisan representation and algorithms can provide a better way to actually accomplish what you want too.

 

7 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

What I propose is using algorithms and technology to better draw districts.

 

6 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 You can mount a legal challenge as to how an algorithm is programmed and step by step go through each line of code.

 

5 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 I am not sure if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how algorithms and the technology proposed to solve the problem is being implemented or you are just willfully ignorant of why the technology is needed and what human involvement is in the technology. 

 

5 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 Algorithms are programmed by humans and the parameters of how the map is drawn is once again defined by humans. 

 

 

Seeing how your view of fair redistricting relies so heavily on the use of algorithms, can you explain to the rest of us how these algorithms would be developed, what criteria would be the basis for their formulation, who could be entrusted to develop and implement them, and how we can verify their accuracy? 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Azalin

[Kevbeau]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeing how your view of fair redistricting relies so heavily on the use of algorithms, can you explain to the rest of us how these algorithms would be developed, what criteria would be the basis for their formulation, who could be entrusted to develop and implement them, and how we can verify their accuracy? 

I concur and if anyone has connections to folks that write code that can be easily audited, I’m hiring.

 

I’m not disagreeing with the billsfan89’s idea of using an analytic based approach (one could argue that’s exactly what they do now) so much as I don’t agree that it would remove the current bias of the system and can be tilted in ways that aren’t always evident.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Kevbeau

[Doc Brown]

11 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Gerrymandering (which is done by both parties, this is not a partisan issue) is one of the biggest and most open forms of corruption and its shocking to me in an age of such advanced technology and algorithms we allow pols of either party to make these horrid maps to their parties benefit. How there isn't an universal algorithm to draw maps in ways that make sense and avoid partisan pols running the system is shocking. 

It's an interesting proposal but the problem is who comes up with these algorithms?  My guess is they'll just use them in different states to gerrymander the districts to their parties advantage even more.  I'm more in favor of independent commissions that seven states now have to draw district lines.

 

Whenever I hear Democrats complain about gerrymandering, I feel like screaming then freaking vote every year like Republicans do instead of every four to gain control of more state legislatures.  If Democrats are true to there word when complaining about gerrymandering than Democrats should pass legislation in states they control calling for independent commissions to draw district lines (like they have now in five states including California and now Colorado).  This could put pressure on other states to do the same.

[Foxx]

put the vote on the blockchain. easy enough to do and being a public ledger, it is immutable and thereby being incorruptible.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Foxx