Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

Seriously guys, this FIFA thing is huge.

It might make the Nobel Peace Prize correct after all.

And to think, the GOP held up Lynch for HOW long?

She just went to work after being confirmed! Goddamn

 

[Oblivion]

Well, Bernie's fucked*:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

*moreso

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well, Bernie's fucked*:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

*moreso

fuckouttahere Bernie.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Well, Bernie's fucked*:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

*moreso

good luck getting that done lol.

 

[ivysaur12]

If you want to hear a Bible passage dick waving competition, the Nebraska legislature is debating to override the governor's veto of the death penalty:

http://www.netnebraska.org/interactive-multimedia/government/unicameral-legislative-session-104

 

[Metaphoreus]

You could help by providing any Libertarian thought on the matter, also from an influential actor.

Is this a Saw joke? In any event, why should I put more effort into discrediting HyperionX's transparently prejudiced statement than he is willing to put into supporting it?

Sadly I don't have statistical evidence, but I was always referring to certain individuals who held those kinds of beliefs in response to Rand Paul comparing the ACA to slavery. I'm not going to be goaded into taking a position I never held in the first place.

If it was a smear, then it is one that is substantiated and is not totally off-base.

The position you took was that many libertarians support legalizing slavery and rape in certain circumstances. You weren't goaded into taking that insupportable position--you did so voluntarily in the mistaken belief that no one who browsed GAF would call you on it. Now that you have been called on it, you purport to establish that your smear is correct by (1) claiming that it is substantiated without actually substantiating it, and (2) pointing to two Reddit threads (that had between them some 200 comments total, some of which you found objectionable) and a left-wing blog post distorting the views of Steve Landsburg.

Here's a good rule to keep in mind: if you believe that many of your political opponents support legalizing rape and slavery, you should stop for a moment and ask yourself whether you actually know the first thing about what your political opponents believe, because the answer is almost certainly, "No." Then, you should investigate to see what they actually believe on those topics. Because I'm nice, I'll even give you a couple good starting points that are available for free.

What about Rand Paul being against the CRA? And there have been more than a few articles about how the CRA needs to be repealed on major websites like Reason and Mises.org.

Repealing the federal prohibition on businesses discriminating on the basis of race would not legalize slavery, so that issue does nothing to support HyperionX's claim.

What's happening here?

NYTimes: SCOTUS to Weigh Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’

Pretty sure we'd have to do another census if they sided with the guys bringing the suit. From what I can tell they want districts to be based on the number of registered voters or citizens and not total population, which would shift power from urban areas to rural depending on how each state decides to break it up. It would affect stuff like House seats and state government, giving rural areas more representation and urban areas less.

wouldn't you have to do a new census every year? what if a ton of people register after the districts are divided, are they just not represented?

This is actually a really interesting case. A short-and-sweet summary:

In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “one-person, one-vote” principle. This principle requires that, “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.” Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, Mo., 397 U.S. 50, 56 (1970). In 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly mal-apportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person, one-vote challenge, which the three-judge district court below dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that Appellants’ constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable political question.

The question presented is whether the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote.

The problem is that, because Texas used total population rather than eligible voter population in drawing its districts, the voting power of an individual voter differs significantly between districts. The plaintiffs in this case are an example of that phenomenon:

Appellants live in districts that substantially deviate (between 31% and 49%) from the “ideal” Senate districts in terms of number of voters or potential voters. There are voters or potential voters in Texas whose Senate votes are worth approximately one and one-half times that of Appellants.

If the plaintiffs prevail, that wouldn't mean that states would have to redraw districts annually--it isn't as if the total population is any less fluid than voter registrations. It also doesn't mean that the states would be required to apportion votes based on registered voters--the plaintiffs mention three different metrics that could be used by the states to calculate the potential voter populations. And, in fact, the plaintiffs aren't even asking for the Court to invalidate apportioning based on total population--instead, they're only seeking to have that method invalidated where it results in skewed voting power between districts.

If you go towards the end of the NYTimes article you even have Thomas saying it's a dumb idea--this was a few years in the past as this issue tends to come up every now and again.

You're misreading Thomas' comment. He was dissenting from the denial of certiorari in another case, and complaining that the Court had never decided what "population" needed to be apportioned among districts. According to the excerpt from Thomas, permitting states to choose which "population" to apportion would eviscerate the "one-person, one-vote" rule.

 

[Black Mamba]

Fuck population, anyway.

Do it by GDP.

Why should some rural county that produces $10 million in GDP have an equal say as a big city district with $500 billion in GDP? Rural counties don't like it? Pick up their bootstraps and produce more.

Equalize the district by GDP.

 

[thepotatoman]

Well, Bernie's fucked*:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

*moreso

But he's right. America had some of its most prosperous growth while the marginal tax rate was that high on the richest people. The only message that's been told to the public for the last 30 years is that we need the rich to be richer to make everyone else richer, but at this point it's clear that giving them more money does not lead to higher investment in things that promote actual growth.

Instead what we've seen is the rich playing with speculations in real estate, natural resources, currency, and stock markets. None of which lead to meaningful growth. Why is our economy better off when a rich person buys his 5th mansion to be kept empty for 11 months every year? Maybe that employed construction workers for a bit to build that house, but why wouldn't we want those construction workers employed fixing and updating our infrastructure instead of giving that rich family the marginal luxury of owning yet another mansion?

Or stock markets, which only gives the company money to work with when it's initially offered, and after that any increases or decreases in price goes towards the CEOs and Investor's personal assets, none of that goes towards actual growth of the company itself.

Yes, Bernie Sanders didn't address every single thing that's changed from Eisenhower's time to now that maybe would make 90% too high, but he also didn't say we should have a 90% top marginal income tax. He only said that the 90% top marginal tax from Eisenhower's era wasn't too high, which is a straight up fact when you look at the economic output from that era.

I don't know exactly how the public will take it, and I would guess that you'd need a lot more time refining and repeating this message before the public comes around on it as a not so crazy idea after all, but you have to start somewhere. I do know Sanders is unlikely to win, and censoring himself isn't going to make himself more likely to win, and I also know Hillary is still fine, and will continue to be fine. Focusing on the horse race aspect of this hurting his campaign seems to miss the point.

 

[jamesinclair]

Fuck population, anyway.

Do it by GDP.

Why should some rural county that produces $10 million in GDP have an equal say as a big city district with $500 billion in GDP? Rural counties don't like it? Pick up their bootstraps and produce more.

Equalize the district by GDP.

I like this

 

[ivysaur12]

This is actually a really interesting case. A short-and-sweet summary:

The problem is that, because Texas used total population rather than eligible voter population in drawing its districts, the voting power of an individual voter differs significantly between districts. The plaintiffs in this case are an example of that phenomenon:

If the plaintiffs prevail, that wouldn't mean that states would have to redraw districts annually--it isn't as if the total population is any less fluid than voter registrations. It also doesn't mean that the states would be required to apportion votes based on registered voters--the plaintiffs mention three different metrics that could be used by the states to calculate the potential voter populations. And, in fact, the plaintiffs aren't even asking for the Court to invalidate apportioning based on total population--instead, they're only seeking to have that method invalidated where it results in skewed voting power between districts.

You're misreading Thomas' comment. He was dissenting from the denial of certiorari in another case, and complaining that the Court had never decided what "population" needed to be apportioned among districts. According to the excerpt from Thomas, permitting states to choose which "population" to apportion would eviscerate the "one-person, one-vote" rule.

Ah, there it is.

 

[Metaphoreus]

This pretty much mirrors what happened with King:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/27/the-gops-next-big-cause/

Yeeeeeaaaaaah. That's a stretch.

It's a "novel legal theory" that, magically I guess, has "come[] before the courts from time to time." And it "flies in the face of . . . settled precedent" even though even Justice Thomas says they've never addressed the question directly.

And I'm not sure it'd be smart for Democrats to complain that this move is "a naked attempt to take representation away from areas where there are lots of Latinos" when, to the extent this case would make a difference, the particular Latinos of whom "there are lots" in those areas can't legally vote. The Republican response writes itself: Democrats want illegal immigrants to have more voting power--see also their opposition to Voter ID laws.

Ah, there it is.

And this highlights that the blog post is a thinly-veiled attempt to prevent discussion of the merits of the case. What matters to the author--and ivysaur12, apparently--is not whether the plaintiffs' claim is right, but that the plaintiffs are conservative activists. If a person voices support for the plaintiffs--which, the savvy reader will note, I haven't--then he or she looks like a predictable partisan shill whose arguments need not be taken seriously. "See, I told you he'd say that!"

 

[Black Republican]

Good read on Hilary redefining herself in south Carolina

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...turn-campaign-visit-118333.html#ixzz3bN9lxbkc

 

[BertramCooper]

Kasich's in (not officially until after June 30).

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeeeeeaaaaaah. That's a stretch.

It's a "novel legal theory" that, magically I guess, has "come[] before the courts from time to time." And it "flies in the face of . . . settled precedent" even though even Justice Thomas says they've never addressed the question directly.

And I'm not sure it'd be smart for Democrats to complain that this move is "a naked attempt to take representation away from areas where there are lots of Latinos" when, to the extent this case would make a difference, the particular Latinos of whom "there are lots" in those areas can't legally vote. The Republican response writes itself: Democrats want illegal immigrants to have more voting power--see also their opposition to Voter ID laws.

And this highlights that the blog post is a thinly-veiled attempt to prevent discussion of the merits of the case. What matters to the author--and ivysaur12, apparently--is not whether the plaintiffs' claim is right, but that the plaintiffs are conservative activists. If a person voices support for the plaintiffs--which, the savvy reader will note, I haven't--then he or she looks like a predictable partisan shill whose arguments need not be taken seriously. "See, I told you he'd say that!"

No, it's not a discussion on the merits because there is no reasonable discussion on the merits. As with the case with King, it bending the rule of law by conservative activist to fit the whims of the day.

And you seem oh so pleased with yourself with the bolded, but please, Meta, I'm excited to see you inevitably beat this drum into oblivion for the next few months for all to hear. We all know where this is going!

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, it's not a discussion on the merits because there is no reasonable discussion on the merits.

Really? You not only have no problem with one voter's vote being 1.5x more potent than another's in electing representatives, but you also deny that anyone could reasonably question such a system? Here's an extreme example given by the plaintiffs in this case:

Under the district court’s reasoning, the Texas Legislature could have adopted a Senate map containing 31 districts of equal total population without violating the one-person, one-vote principle—even if 30 of the districts each contained one voter and the 31st district contained all other voters in the State.

That implication doesn't even give you pause? And you deny it could anyone else, either?

It's seriously time for some of you to realize that your opinions and beliefs are not the only reasonable ones on offer. People can legitimately disagree with you. That's life.

 

[NeoXChaos]

With all of these candidate jumping in I wonder how much opposition research the Hillary campaign will go through. I dont see her going negative against Bernie and O'Malley. I assume Bush, Rubio, Walker, Paul and now Kasich will be targets. The debates will be spectacular, they may even deserve an off-topic.

 

[ivysaur12]

Really? You not only have no problem with one voter's vote being 1.5x more potent than another's in electing representatives, but you also deny that anyone could reasonably question such a system? Here's an extreme example given by the plaintiffs in this case:



That implication doesn't even give you pause? And you deny it could anyone else, either?

It's seriously time for some of you to realize that your opinions and beliefs are not the only reasonable ones on offer. People can legitimately disagree with you. That's life.

Your example is an uncited hypothetical in the plaintiff's brief? Really?

 

[BertramCooper]

Your example is an uncited hypothetical in the plaintiff's brief? Really?

To be fair, it's a terrifying hypothetical.

Like, I'm getting pauses all over the place from it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Is this a Saw joke? In any event, why should I put more effort into discrediting HyperionX's transparently prejudiced statement than he is willing to put into supporting it?

Because this isn't debate club or a court of law, it's a social political discussion forum and you had an issue with a stereotype about libertarians (which, if I recall, you identify as). So it might help you out.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your example is an uncited hypothetical in the plaintiff's brief? Really?

Yes, really. Now, would you like to have a rational discussion over the extent to which it would be legal under the district court's reasoning? Or were you merely hoping that pointing to the source of the argument would suffice to discredit it?

In either event, you're missing the point. The question I'm asking of you is not whether you agree with the plaintiffs or not; the question is whether you really are so closed-minded that you deny that any reasonable person could. This is not King; the question raised is based on common-sense conceptions of fairness, not technical rules of statutory interpretation.

Because this isn't debate club or a court of law, it's a social political discussion forum and you had an issue with a stereotype about libertarians (which, if I recall, you identify as). So it might help you out.

Further down in the quoted post, I link to an article by Randy Barnett regarding Lysander Spooner, and to a book by Murray Rothbard. You might also have some success in teasing out common libertarian beliefs by searching cato.org, libertarianism.org, or lp.org.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes, really. Now, would you like to have a rational discussion over the extent to which it would be legal under the district court's reasoning? Or were you merely hoping that pointing to the source of the argument would suffice to discredit it?

In either event, you're missing the point. The question I'm asking of you is not whether you agree with the plaintiffs or not; the question is whether you really are so closed-minded that you deny that any reasonable person could. This is not King; the question raised is based on common-sense conceptions of fairness, not technical rules of statutory interpretation.

It's not fair to say, but doesn't this give you pause!!, from an uncited source in a plaintiff's brief that, while looking for anything to substantiate such a claim, returns nothing.

And no, I think it's a silly argument that doesn't really have much merit. Do I think a reasonable person could disagree? Fine. Sure. One could.

 

[Black Mamba]

And this highlights that the blog post is a thinly-veiled attempt to prevent discussion of the merits of the case. What matters to the author--and ivysaur12, apparently--is not whether the plaintiffs' claim is right, but that the plaintiffs are conservative activists. If a person voices support for the plaintiffs--which, the savvy reader will note, I haven't--then he or she looks like a predictable partisan shill whose arguments need not be taken seriously. "See, I told you he'd say that!"

Whether the plantiff is right is irrelevant because we do not currently measure what they want and we probably are incapable of accurately measuring what they want.

Really? You not only have no problem with one voter's vote being 1.5x more potent than another's in electing representatives, but you also deny that anyone could reasonably question such a system? Here's an extreme example given by the plaintiffs in this case:

The only votes that are more potent are those in rural communities. The plaintiff is arguing for an even more favorable outcome than the one that currently exists.

That implication doesn't even give you pause? And you deny it could anyone else, either?

Break up the US Senate. After all, this is exactly what Delaware is to California!

Also, it's an absurd argument. The extreme hyperbole is irrational and the real situation probably isn't measurable.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's not fair to say, but doesn't this give you pause!!, from an uncited source in a plaintiff's brief that, while looking for anything to substantiate such a claim, returns nothing.

But of course it's fair! The hypothetical is meant to show the logical implication of adopting a rule in which states can apportion districts based on total population and without regard to the relative equality of the eligible-voter population. You don't need to see the district court explicitly catalog all the logical implications of its rule to recognize some outcome as belonging to that category.

Personally, I think the facts of this case are extreme enough to raise the issue clearly, but you apparently don't, which is why I mentioned the hypothetical.

And no, I think it's a silly argument that doesn't really have much merit. Do I think a reasonable person could disagree? Fine. Sure. One could.

Well, that's progress, I guess.

Whether the plantiff is right is irrelevant because we do not currently measure what they want and we probably are incapable of accurately measuring what they want.

Also, it's an absurd argument. The extreme hyperbole is irrational and the real situation probably isn't measurable.

Conceptually, I don't see why measuring the population of eligible voters is any more impossible than measuring the total population. And as a practical matter...

The only votes that are more potent are those in rural communities. The plaintiff is arguing for an even more favorable outcome than the one that currently exists.

Can you expand on your first sentence?

Break up the US Senate. After all, this is exactly what Delaware is to California!

These are different situations. The Senate, for structural purposes, was never meant to be--and is not--based on population, whereas state legislative houses must be under current Supreme Court doctrine. Of course, if you believe that the Senate should be based on population, then the plaintiffs' argument would apply equally to apportioning Senate districts as it does to state legislative districts.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Louisiana lawmakers passed a resolution allowing the next Governor to expand Medicaid. 240,000 would be eligible.

http://theadvocate.com/news/12484319-123/medicaid-expansion-option-measure-advances

Vitter wont expand medicaid if he is elected. sigh

Republicans who support Medicaid are not Republicans & need to be voted out of office.
More than likely we have many who are "pretend Republicans, who only claim to be such in order to
surreptitiously get elected. No Obama-care for LA!!!

 

[Jooney]

Really? You not only have no problem with one voter's vote being 1.5x more potent than another's in electing representatives

I have no strong feelings about the case either way, but just wanted to point out that this already happens on a vastly greater scale within the current system - it's called the Electoral Collage. And let's not forget how senate representation is made up.

EDIT: Arguing hypotheticals within reason are fine but some real-life data would be great. I should also add that in arguments about the VRA and voter ID all the real-life evidence that placing economic barriers on voting would enact a de-facto poll tax limiting people's access to the franchise wasn't enough to sway the court in its final ruling, nor the plaintiffs who brought the case to court.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Really? You not only have no problem with one voter's vote being 1.5x more potent than another's in electing representatives, but you also deny that anyone could reasonably question such a system? Here's an extreme example given by the plaintiffs in this case:

When someone in Wyoming votes for a senator their ballot is something like 70x more powerful than the same voter in California and that doesn't seem to bother you. If the concern is giving one group of votes more proportional value than others then the first then to do is reform the Senate.

 

[Coriolanus]

When someone in Wyoming votes for a senator their ballot is something like 70x more powerful than the same voter in California and that doesn't seem to bother you. If the concern is giving one group of votes more proportional value than others then the first then to do is reform the Senate.

Senate is counterbalanced by the House. One is a check/balance for the other, so no need for reform.

One could make the argument that some states should have their number of representatives in the house upped, however.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I have no strong feelings about the case either way, but just wanted to point out that this already happens on a vastly greater scale within the current system - it's called the Electoral Collage. And let's not forget how senate representation is made up.

When someone in Wyoming votes for a senator their ballot is something like 70x more powerful than the same voter in California and that doesn't seem to bother you. If the concern is giving one group of votes more proportional value than others then the first then to do is reform the Senate.

See my response to Black Mamba in the edited version of my last post.

 

[ivysaur12]

But of course it's fair! The hypothetical is meant to show the logical implication of adopting a rule in which states can apportion districts based on total population and without regard to the relative equality of the eligible-voter population. You don't need to see the district court explicitly catalog all the logical implications of its rule to recognize some outcome as belonging to that category.

Personally, I think the facts of this case are extreme enough to raise the issue clearly, but you apparently don't, which is why I mentioned the hypothetical.

But is a such a thing possible? They say, well, maybe it could happen given the structure, but:

-- How many illegal immigrants are in Texas? How many are being counted by Texas as total members of their population?

-- Where are these illegal immigrants dispersed?

-- Would it be actually possible to build a map in which the following is actually possible under the Texas rules of redistricting:

Under the district court’s reasoning, the Texas Legislature could have adopted a Senate map containing 31 districts of equal total population without violating the one-person, one-vote principle—even if 30 of the districts each contained one voter and the 31st district contained all other voters in the State.

Could it? Like, actually without potential VRA issues? Which is why I'm sort of dubious of any claims that are uncited within their brief.

 

[Black Mamba]

Conceptually, I don't see why measuring the population of eligible voters is any more impossible than measuring the total population. And as a practical matter...

Ever done a census? notice how easy it is? Making it more complicated means less response rate, especially from those that are illegal.

"Citizen voting age" isn't accurate at all. It is not close to the actual "eligible voters" number. Neither is voter registration numbers, of course. Hell, look at the delay for purging lists of the deceased.

538 just released an article, though this has long been known in political science circles. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/one-person-one-vote-case-relies-on-statistics-that-nobody-has/

Something not noted are legal immigrants who will soon vote (something urban cities have lots of) that would be disenfranchised during the time they get their citizenship. Or people turning 18. .

These stats don't exist right and no one is sure if they could accurately get them. Why deviate from something we are pretty sure is reliable?

Can you expand on your first sentence?

In most states, rural districts have way more say than they should in government, IMO. Especially at the Congressional level (both houses) but also within their own state governments. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

These are different situations. The Senate, for structural purposes, was never meant to be--and is not--based on population, whereas state legislative houses must be under current Supreme Court doctrine. Of course, if you believe that the Senate should be based on population, then the plaintiffs' argument would apply equally to apportioning Senate districts as it does to state legislative districts.

I am very aware. But if you can take something and argue to an extreme absurdity (the 30 districts with one voter), then I can do the same. You should be in favor of breaking up the Senate; it's the logical extreme conclusion of your argument. Make every vote equal in ever way!

 

[ivysaur12]

You should be in favor of breaking up the Senate; it's the logical extreme conclusion of your argument. Make every vote equal in ever way!

Ah, but Black Mamba, as the savvy reader will note, he actually hasn't taken a position, he's just vigorously defending the plaintiff's.

 

[Metaphoreus]

-- Would it be actually possible to build a map in which the following is actually possible under the Texas rules of redistricting:

Could it? Like, actually without potential VRA issues? Which is why I'm sort of dubious of any claims that are uncited within their brief.

Regarding your first two questions, the entire lawsuit is based on data regarding voters and potential voters.

I don't think the relevant question here is whether the plaintiffs' hypothetical is actually feasible, or whether it could be accomplished without running afoul of separate statutory limitations. Their point is that such a scheme could not possibly satisfy the constitutional rule of "one person, one vote," and so any judicial rule that would allow for such an outcome must be wrong.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ah, but Black Mamba, as the savvy reader will note, he actually hasn't taken a position, he's just vigorously defending the plaintiff's.

Well, it's the logical conclusion of the argument, even if it's not his argument, so my point stands!


What we're witnessing is the final throes of the current conservative movement. Like any culture/society/gov't/etc that is about to go down, they throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks. They also try to game any technicalities in the system to make their stay as long as possible.

It's a losing war and they'll fight tooth and nail as hard as they can. That's what this, the affirmative action, the King case, this voting case, etc.

The future isn't conservative (it pretty much can't be!) by today's standards and time isn't on their side, but they will fight.

 

[Black Mamba]

Regarding your first two questions, the entire lawsuit is based on data regarding voters and potential voters.

I don't think the relevant question here is whether the plaintiffs' hypothetical is actually feasible, or whether it could be accomplished without running afoul of separate statutory limitations. Their point is that such a scheme could not possibly satisfy the constitutional rule of "one person, one vote," and so any judicial rule that would allow for such an outcome must be wrong.

This is not true. The Courts are not binding by extreme hypotheticals. Reality matters.

 

[ivysaur12]

Regarding your first two questions, the entire lawsuit is based on data regarding voters and potential voters.

I don't think the relevant question here is whether the plaintiffs' hypothetical is actually feasible, or whether it could be accomplished without running afoul of separate statutory limitations. Their point is that such a scheme could not possibly satisfy the constitutional rule of "one person, one vote," and so any judicial rule that would allow for such an outcome must be wrong.

But it's absolutely relevant whether a thing is possible in actuality because the judicial ruling wouldn't actually allow such a thing to happen.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Ever done a census? notice how easy it is? Making it more complicated means less response rate, especially from those that are illegal.

"Citizen voting age" isn't accurate at all. It is not close to the actual "eligible voters" number. Neither is voter registration numbers, of course. Hell, look at the delay for purging lists of the deceased.

538 just released an article, though this has long been known in political science circles. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/one-person-one-vote-case-relies-on-statistics-that-nobody-has/

Your 538 article acknowledges that sampling, the method used by the Census Bureau to calculate the number of voting-age citizens used by the plaintiffs, can be more accurate than counting, which the Census Bureau uses to calculate total population in the actual Census. The problem with the former, according to 538, is that the survey conducted by the Census Bureau "has struggled to get support from Congress." But that's hardly an insurmountable problem if the plaintiffs win. And, to the extent that CVAP only approximates the potential voter population, it nevertheless does so much better than does simply counting heads. There's no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good on this point.

Something not noted are legal immigrants who will soon vote (something urban cities have lots of) that would be disenfranchised during the time they get their citizenship. Or people turning 18. .

I don't understand your point here. Redistricting only once every ten years is always going to result in interim changes that throw off the population count. That doesn't result in disenfranchising anyone.

In most states, rural districts have way more say than they should in government, IMO. Especially at the Congressional level (both houses) but also within their own state governments. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Based on what metric?

I am very aware. But if you can take something and argue to an extreme absurdity (the 30 districts with one voter), then I can do the same. You should be in favor of breaking up the Senate; it's the logical extreme conclusion of your argument. Make every vote equal in ever way!

Not so, because the Senate is clearly not governed by the one-person, one-vote rule, and there are reasons why it shouldn't be. I'm not a democrat, so the fact that the Senate isn't apportioned by population doesn't bother me. But I do recognize the argument that, for bodies that are apportioned by population, the "population" by which they should be apportioned is the population of potential voters, rather than the total population.

Ah, but Black Mamba, as the savvy reader will note, he actually hasn't taken a position, he's just vigorously defending the plaintiff's.

It is hardly a "vigorous defense" to say that an argument is reasonable, or to explain what, exactly, the argument is and entails. You mistake it for a defense merely because your opposition to the argument is inspired by partisan bias rather than rational analysis.

But it's absolutely relevant whether a thing is possible in actuality because the judicial ruling wouldn't actually allow such a thing to happen.

Sure, it may be comforting to the justices to know that that extreme hypothetical would never occur, but we're talking about matters of principle, not practicality. The rule is this: "[W]hen members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials." That's either a real rule with real-world consequences--i.e., states really must, "as far as is practicable," ensure that "equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials,"--or it's just a thing that was said once, and doesn't actually govern state action. If the district court is right, and a state's decision to rely on total population where that results in gross disparities between individuals' voting power is simply unreviewable by a court, then it follows that the quoted rule does not govern state action, since the logical implications run so contrary to it.

 

[ivysaur12]

It is hardly a "vigorous defense" to say that an argument is reasonable, or to explain what, exactly, the argument is and entails. You mistake it for a defense merely because your opposition to the argument is inspired by partisan bias rather than rational analysis.

Thank you, I wasn't able to understand my own internal heuristics until you pointed them out.

Sure, it may be comforting to the justices to know that that extreme hypothetical would never occur, but we're talking about matters of principle, not practicality. The rule is this: "[W]hen members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials." That's either a real rule with real-world consequences--i.e., states really must, "as far as is practicable," ensure that "equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials,"--or it's just a thing that was said once, and doesn't actually govern state action. If the district court is right, and a state's decision to rely on total population where that results in gross disparities between individuals' voting power is simply unreviewable by a court, then it follows that the quoted rule does not govern state action, since the logical implications run so contrary to it.

Except, again, practicality matters. You cannot use that example as an example of the system's irrationality when that example would never occur.

EDIT: I told myself I wasn't going to respond to you anymore because your posts end up sucking me out of my work. This is it.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

See my response to Black Mamba in the edited version of my last post.

So, to be clear, your objection is not that one voter has massively disproportion power to another, its adherence to established doctrine?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Except, again, practicality matters. You cannot use that example as an example of the system's irrationality when that example would never occur.

EDIT: I told myself I wasn't going to respond to you anymore because your posts end up sucking me out of my work. This is it.

no u

 

[BertramCooper]

I'd love to get a running count on the number of times Mike Huckabee has publicly used some variation of "The Supreme Court is not the supreme being."

 

[ivysaur12]

no u

:-(

 

[Black Mamba]

Your 538 article acknowledges that sampling, the method used by the Census Bureau to calculate the number of voting-age citizens used by the plaintiffs, can be more accurate than counting, which the Census Bureau uses to calculate total population in the actual Census. The problem with the former, according to 538, is that the survey conducted by the Census Bureau "has struggled to get support from Congress." But that's hardly an insurmountable problem if the plaintiffs win. And, to the extent that CVAP only approximates the potential voter population, it nevertheless does so much better than does simply counting heads. There's no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good on this point.

Notice how the article did not say "sampling is more accurate." It says "it can be," which is not the same thing at all. To change the method, it better be almost assuredly more accurate.

Further, it has been argued it is unconstitutional (in fact, the SCOTUS said as much for national purposes). So there's that problem too.

The bold misses the point. The issue is whether CVAP will come to a better representation of "eligible voter population" in a district than a census count. This has never been substantiated in any statistical form. Until that day comes, I see no reason to change the process.

Hell, let's do one of your absurd arguments. A district has a giant prison that houses 99.999% of the population. the CVAP would be 100%. But only 1 man can vote (the guards all commute except 1, FWIW). Boom, this method failed. What now?

The problem is every known method has flaws. All have situations that will result in failure. Either we find a method we know is more accurate or we just stick to the one we got.

And that doesn't even bring up the issue of whether children and illegals and prisoners shouldn't count towards representation. Yes, they may not be legally allowed to vote, but that doesn't mean they deserve a lack of representation. Are representatives supposed to ignore people who can't vote? We allow children to write their representatives, no? Ex-cons? Prisoners? A lack of voting rights does not mean a lack of representation. Regardless, this is a different argument I don't want to have, just wanted to put it out there.

I don't understand your point here. Redistricting only once every ten years is always going to result in interim changes that throw off the population count. That doesn't result in disenfranchising anyone.

And this is different from counting heads, how?

Based on what metric?

Not so, because the Senate is clearly not governed by the one-person, one-vote rule, and there are reasons why it shouldn't be. I'm not a democrat, so the fact that the Senate isn't apportioned by population doesn't bother me. But I do recognize the argument that, for bodies that are apportioned by population, the "population" by which they should be apportioned is the population of potential voters, rather than the total population.

You're missing the point entirely. We know how the Senate is governed, the issue is the arguments being made irrelevant of that.

This entire case is a power grab by rural counties because they hate the fact that their influence has an expiration date and they're change to move it back more.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I was wondering what absurd court case meta was gonna defend after king with long drawn out defenses which he claims aren't actually defenses. We have our answer.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Also I can't deal with Union threads anymore. I don't know its because some posters are really ignorant of how labor markets/laws work or they've just bought into anti-union propaganda so much.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I'd love to get a running count on the number of times Mike Huckabee has publicly used some variation of "The Supreme Court is not the supreme being."

I don't think we have numbers big enough for that. We'll have to come up with something new... how does "Huckaplex" sound to you?

 

[Chichikov]

Bah, this is neogaf, the best posters haven't even played a video game in years.

Hey now, I'm playing the Polish card game thing.
I wish they didn't stick that weird minigame in it where you run around as an albino killing monsters, not sure what's the point of it.

 

[pigeon]

I have no strong feelings about the case either way, but just wanted to point out that this already happens on a vastly greater scale within the current system - it's called the Electoral Collage. And let's not forget how senate representation is made up.

.

 

[NeoXChaos]

America is in trouble if Huckabee ever got in. A hypothetically Huckabee Administration after recent revelations is more frightening than a Walker Administration.

 

[ivysaur12]

If only Santorum would shut up about social issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/u...n-2016-presidential-race.html?smid=tw-nytimes

At times, his unwillingness to emphasize the issues that worked for him in 2012 — opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage — and his decision to criticize his own party for being obsessed with cutting taxes for the rich have made him seem the boldest candidate in the race.

In 2012, Mr. Santorum embodied many conservatives’ dissatisfaction with Mr. Romney, who won the nomination after other conservatives proved to have fatal flaws.

Addressing 1,000 evangelicals in Iowa last month — at a forum where Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin read from a Christian devotional and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called on believers to fall to their knees in prayer to stop the Supreme Court from legalizing same-sex marriage — Mr. Santorum called for an increase in the minimum wage, and for Republicans to reach out to the majority of Americans without a college degree.

He criticized his party for being stuck “with a 35-year-old message on the economy,” namely cutting taxes for the rich.

It is a message that has yet to gain much traction with the party’s base. But Mr. Santorum’s interest in economic populism is genuine, said John Brabender, his top strategist.

“He does feel very, very passionate about this whole idea we have to become the voice of working families,” Mr. Brabender said.

Conservatives not beholden to a tax pledge that you can find common ground with on economic issues? We need that.

 

[Jooney]

Also I can't deal with Union threads anymore. I don't know its because some posters are really ignorant of how labor markets/laws work or they've just bought into anti-union propaganda so much.

I feel the same way about minimum wage threads. The ferocity in which some posters jealously guard their scraps they get from the economic table is frightening.

.

Goddammit, I've just been pigeon-hold.