7 ms·

There's currently a push to take it to the supreme court so it can be stopped once and for all. Archive link because the Baltimore Sun doesn't like Europe: ht

by swebs 7y ago

There's currently a push to take it to the supreme court so it can be stopped once and for all. Archive link because the Baltimore Sun doesn't like Europe: http://archive.is/a3mMR http://archive.is/a3mMR

GavinMcG 7y ago
That's an article from several months ago. The Supreme Court already ruled, and said that federal courts couldn't do anything about it, so state governments that are controlled by one party can continue to entrench their power. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/gerrymandering-symposium-supreme-court-confirms-that-it-will-not-save-our-maps-only-voters-can/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/gerrymandering-symposium-...
non-entity 7y ago
> There's currently a push to take it to the supreme court so it can be stopped once and for all. I may be mistaken, but I thought I read the court ruled it constitutional
- Delmania 7y ago
  Their ruling was that the Supreme Court is not the decider here, this has to be done at a state level.
sergiotapia 7y ago
If they do this doesn't this mean 5 cities will dictate who is in charge of the country?
- jascii 7y ago
  I'm not quite sure I follow you, could you elaborate?
  - Spivak 7y ago
    One of the arguments in favor of the electoral college is that it boosts the voice of people who are in areas with lower population density. This is to ensure that minority interests are respected and taken into account by presidential hopefuls. Without this protection the voices of people who live outside the 5 major metropolitan areas simply wouldn't matter and candidates would have no reason to listen to their issues and have no repercussions for hurting them to favor city-dwellers. This would be bad. Very bad. A straight population vote ends up being a scheduling algorithm for issues where rural interests have unbounded wait time. One could say that the solution of weighting rural votes higher is a clunky system but any replacement voting system needs to take this into account as those small towns are where almost all of our primary industry is.
    - TheBranca18 7y ago
      If this is the issue, the electoral college doesn't solve this. Because what happens is the campaigning for the general election is usually dictated by swing state status and when the caucus or primary takes place in the election calendar. If you look at the distribution of states visited during the campaigning for the general election, it backs this up. Also, the Senate is supposed to combat the House in this instance. That's what it's there for, and frankly, because of the importance of the Senate, a voter in Wyoming has more voting power than a voter in California. This isn't good either as you mention in your last statement.
      - andrekandre 7y ago
        yep, and i would posit that hanging everything off of swing states gyrates the presidential debates into wild swings in extreme directions which possibly further divide the population against each other over time
    - dfbrown 7y ago
      All but two state's electoral votes are decided by the result of the popular vote in that state, congressional districts have no effect on that. Local and proportional representation is the main reason for having the house of representatives, while the reason for Gerrymandering is to disproportionately favor one party or another.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think you're referring to national elections which ends up being in the court of the electoral college which is a terribly broken system but separate from the habit of gerrymandering, only a few states will divide their electoral votes - and the rest simply give all their votes to whoever won a plurality of the vote. (And, to clarify, I believe you're referring to a false talking point that's often thrown about to spread F.U.D.)
- sagichmal 7y ago
  It makes sense that the majority of the population should be able to “dictate” (really: have majority influence on) policy, doesn’t it?
hsnewman 7y ago
If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the constitution about doing this. It is unfortunately completely legal.
agjm 7y ago
I think the Baltimore Sun probably likes Europe just fine - what they don't like are self-contradictory rule sets that can cost them $20,000,000+ on top of the cost of achieving "compliance." 'Sarah Toporoff, a Massachusetts native who works in Paris for the Global Editors Network, which promotes newsroom innovation, raised similar questions. She said U.S. newsrooms “are a benchmark for digital innovation” — and it’s important that their content be available in Europe.' 'It is naive and wholly irresponsible to think that U.S. news holds no relevance beyond U.S. borders...' Perhaps, then, Europe should've had some international discussion about their hyper-aggressive legislation, to try and prevent this situation. I am dumbfounded that anyone thinks the U.S. corporations are to blame for not spending millions to comply with a foreign law from countries where they have no legal representation. Preventing that sort of 'taxation without representation' is something of a popular idea over here. https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/more-than-1000-u-s-news-sites-are-still-unavailable-in-europe-two-months-after-gdpr-took-effect/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/more-than-1000-u-s-news-si...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  > on top of the cost of achieving "compliance." Compliance with GDPR is easy though - don't aggressively track and monitor European visitors. If you've stuffed your website that full with invasive trackers et al that you can't show it to Europeans for fear of broaching personal privacy legislation, you should probably have a good long think about where you've gone wrong.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    GDPR is not merely a list of bad things to avoid, it adds a lot of ongoing burdens to every company active in the region. Hire more people. Actively investigate your own compliance. Wait months for government permission to deliver features. There are people who aren't doing anything wrong, who did the math and decided they can't clear a profit on proving they aren't doing anything wrong.

by swebs 7y ago

GavinMcG 7y ago

That's an article from several months ago. The Supreme Court already ruled, and said that federal courts couldn't do anything about it, so state governments that are controlled by one party can continue to entrench their power. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/gerrymandering-symposium-supreme-court-confirms-that-it-will-not-save-our-maps-only-voters-can/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/gerrymandering-symposium-...

non-entity 7y ago

> There's currently a push to take it to the supreme court so it can be stopped once and for all. I may be mistaken, but I thought I read the court ruled it constitutional

Delmania 7y ago
Their ruling was that the Supreme Court is not the decider here, this has to be done at a state level.

sergiotapia 7y ago

If they do this doesn't this mean 5 cities will dictate who is in charge of the country?

jascii 7y ago
I'm not quite sure I follow you, could you elaborate?
- Spivak 7y ago
  One of the arguments in favor of the electoral college is that it boosts the voice of people who are in areas with lower population density. This is to ensure that minority interests are respected and taken into account by presidential hopefuls. Without this protection the voices of people who live outside the 5 major metropolitan areas simply wouldn't matter and candidates would have no reason to listen to their issues and have no repercussions for hurting them to favor city-dwellers. This would be bad. Very bad. A straight population vote ends up being a scheduling algorithm for issues where rural interests have unbounded wait time. One could say that the solution of weighting rural votes higher is a clunky system but any replacement voting system needs to take this into account as those small towns are where almost all of our primary industry is.
  - TheBranca18 7y ago
    If this is the issue, the electoral college doesn't solve this. Because what happens is the campaigning for the general election is usually dictated by swing state status and when the caucus or primary takes place in the election calendar. If you look at the distribution of states visited during the campaigning for the general election, it backs this up. Also, the Senate is supposed to combat the House in this instance. That's what it's there for, and frankly, because of the importance of the Senate, a voter in Wyoming has more voting power than a voter in California. This isn't good either as you mention in your last statement.
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      yep, and i would posit that hanging everything off of swing states gyrates the presidential debates into wild swings in extreme directions which possibly further divide the population against each other over time
  - dfbrown 7y ago
    All but two state's electoral votes are decided by the result of the popular vote in that state, congressional districts have no effect on that. Local and proportional representation is the main reason for having the house of representatives, while the reason for Gerrymandering is to disproportionately favor one party or another.
munk-a 7y ago
I think you're referring to national elections which ends up being in the court of the electoral college which is a terribly broken system but separate from the habit of gerrymandering, only a few states will divide their electoral votes - and the rest simply give all their votes to whoever won a plurality of the vote. (And, to clarify, I believe you're referring to a false talking point that's often thrown about to spread F.U.D.)
sagichmal 7y ago
It makes sense that the majority of the population should be able to “dictate” (really: have majority influence on) policy, doesn’t it?

hsnewman 7y ago

If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the constitution about doing this. It is unfortunately completely legal.

agjm 7y ago

I think the Baltimore Sun probably likes Europe just fine - what they don't like are self-contradictory rule sets that can cost them $20,000,000+ on top of the cost of achieving "compliance." 'Sarah Toporoff, a Massachusetts native who works in Paris for the Global Editors Network, which promotes newsroom innovation, raised similar questions. She said U.S. newsrooms “are a benchmark for digital innovation” — and it’s important that their content be available in Europe.' 'It is naive and wholly irresponsible to think that U.S. news holds no relevance beyond U.S. borders...' Perhaps, then, Europe should've had some international discussion about their hyper-aggressive legislation, to try and prevent this situation. I am dumbfounded that anyone thinks the U.S. corporations are to blame for not spending millions to comply with a foreign law from countries where they have no legal representation. Preventing that sort of 'taxation without representation' is something of a popular idea over here. https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/more-than-1000-u-s-news-sites-are-still-unavailable-in-europe-two-months-after-gdpr-took-effect/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/more-than-1000-u-s-news-si...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zimpenfish 7y ago
> on top of the cost of achieving "compliance." Compliance with GDPR is easy though - don't aggressively track and monitor European visitors. If you've stuffed your website that full with invasive trackers et al that you can't show it to Europeans for fear of broaching personal privacy legislation, you should probably have a good long think about where you've gone wrong.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  GDPR is not merely a list of bad things to avoid, it adds a lot of ongoing burdens to every company active in the region. Hire more people. Actively investigate your own compliance. Wait months for government permission to deliver features. There are people who aren't doing anything wrong, who did the math and decided they can't clear a profit on proving they aren't doing anything wrong.