If you thought the roll back of roe vs wade was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[Devin]

 

10 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

Can you provide stats on this? I think getting people to vote is a whole separate issue, imo. 

It's simple math, if half (+ 1) the electorate vote democrat, they gain the majority in the House despite any amount of gerrymandering

Draw the most gerrymandered map and have half the electorate vote the other way

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[Devin]

19 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Now you've arrived at that perspective. Back then it was the backbone of the culture, the strive to be rich was over here as well to a lesser degree. You are looking at something through a modern lens, and not appreciating how it used to be. I would suggest watching interviews on how the mall for example was the meeting spot for American youth, or how wall street was seen as a positive progressive force by most people. How and why things like muscle cars were a sex symbol, or the fanatic nature of fans which went even further than it does now.

I don't know American culture as well as someone that was born there, but I do know the time quite well as I was born at the end of it. We had some of what I've written above, where money was everything, it defined almost all opportunities in life rather than as it is now, where you can with a good work ethic, some luck, and the training/team achieve almost anything. Naturally, because money almost completely defined not only your social status but almost value as a person, materialism was aspired to more readily. Things were status and the act of trying to get things, was an identifying aspect of culture back then.

I'm trying to give you a snapshot into the mindset because its completely different to when I was young.

I'll close with, just because something is harmful doesn't mean culture isn't built around it. War for example was a pillar of many cultures through history even if the average people in those cultures hated and never wanted to see it.

I don't sense camaraderie or trust with materialism/greed even back in the day, I think it always came with deceit and a lack of integrity which keeps people from being unified, no ones ever trusted each other over here and anyone would sell out the rest of the country.

I agree that was the strive though, I think it still is today, not because it's celebrated though, but because of fear.

[DocWatts]

 

 

[BlueOak]

23 hours ago, Devin said:

I don't sense camaraderie or trust with materialism/greed even back in the day, I think it always came with deceit and a lack of integrity which keeps people from being unified, no ones ever trusted each other over here and anyone would sell out the rest of the country.

I agree that was the strive though, I think it still is today, not because it's celebrated though, but because of fear.

A few other examples I can think of things that do exactly that, but are/were still part of the culture binding a country are: War, Intelligence services, Dog Eat Dog cultures, cultures with a history of piracy or privateering, Colosseums, Slavery, Raiding, etc. Many of which are negative things but still formed the basis of a culture.

As I said it doesn't have to be positive from our point of view for it to be true.

[Devin]

23 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

A few other examples I can think of things that do exactly that, but are/were still part of the culture binding a country are: War, Intelligence services, Dog Eat Dog cultures, cultures with a history of piracy or privateering, Colosseums, Slavery, Raiding, etc. Many of which are negative things but still formed the basis of a culture.

As I said it doesn't have to be positive from our point of view for it to be true.

Yeah I don't mean that only "positive" traditions can be unifying. War, raiding, pirating, slavery, coliseums is us against them though.

Dog eat dog, american capitalism is us against each other

[WisdomSeeker]

On 7/7/2022 at 2:04 PM, Devin said:

 

It's simple math, if half (+ 1) the electorate vote democrat, they gain the majority in the House despite any amount of gerrymandering

Draw the most gerrymandered map and have half the electorate vote the other way

That's incorrect, define what you mean by electorate? Just eligible voters, correct? Or voters by district? That's a term used broadly in politics and often times used incorrectly. 

[Devin]

34 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

That's incorrect, define what you mean by electorate? Just eligible voters, correct? Or voters by district? That's a term used broadly in politics and often times used incorrectly. 

The people they count to come up with their whole number of which they divvy up into districts\seats/representatives

I was wrong though, sorry, I apologize.

But in principal, it's not a big deal for the reason I gave. You also have to consider voters change their mind and usually vote against the ruling party.

I don't see how gerrymandering can or should be so terrifying, the ruling party obviously should get to determine the map, they are the representatives

Edited July 8, 2022 by Devin

[WisdomSeeker]

21 hours ago, Devin said:

The people they count to come up with their whole number of which they divvy up into districts\seats/representatives

I was wrong though, sorry, I apologize.

But in principal, it's not a big deal for the reason I gave. You also have to consider voters change their mind and usually vote against the ruling party.

I don't see how gerrymandering can or should be so terrifying, the ruling party obviously should get to determine the map, they are the representatives

I don't think anyone should choose how maps are redrawn. I support removing gerrymandering altogether. It should be algorithmically done to prevent any biases. It's actually not that difficult to resolve at all. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by WisdomSeeker

[Devin]

1 hour ago, WisdomSeeker said:

I don't think anyone should choose how maps are redrawn. I support removing gerrymandering altogether. It should be algorithmically done to prevent any biases. It's actually not that difficult to resolve at all. 

I don't see how you could do it without any bias. What's the basis of the algorithm? 

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

I don't see how you could do it without any bias. What's the basis of the algorithm? 

In Michigan we've tackled this problem by taking redistricting powers away from political parties, and giving that responsibility to an unaffiliated and decentralized independent citizens commission that's held to a much higher oversight standards.

Is this a perfect solution? Well no system run by humans ever is. But it's innumerably better than the districting process that existed before these reforms, with the overwhelming conflict of interest that existed from political parties being allowed to draw their own districts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/michigan-congressional-maps.amp.html

Edited July 9, 2022 by DocWatts

[WisdomSeeker]

17 hours ago, Devin said:

I don't see how you could do it without any bias. What's the basis of the algorithm? 

Ta Da!!! https://youtu.be/gRCZR_BbjTo