8 ms·

> I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side.

> I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side. That's the issue. One side is now against census so people aren't represented, restricting voting so people don't get a say, and people keep saying 'both sides'.

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
I agree, the Democrats are responsible for 95% of the problem.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
And I wish people would stop defending the other side in that 5% as if 5% was okay.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  When someone claims it’s 50%, it’s critical to point out when it’s actually 5%, or corrective resources are misallocated. Focusing as much on the 5% as the 95% is the exact mechanism by which the 95% is allowed to get that bad.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    I would argue that "how dare you talk about the 5% given there's a 95% about, what do you mean equal enforcement of uniform rules, anyone who is concerned about anything but the 95% is a moral monster" is also part of how the 95% got so bad. People have built-in game theory enough to be highly sensitive to others trying to set up unequal enforcement.
TallGuyShort 6y ago
I don't understand the Democratic side here either. There's a question of citizenship, but census data is used to determine allocation of electoral college votes. The electoral college system being something that I support but that Democrats keep trying to undermine. Yeah if you come here undocumented, or illegally, there's pretty natural consequences. I don't think anyone should ignore that. And they seem to want undocumented immigrants to be treated at the same level as legally naturalized citizens, but they rarely take any opportunities for immigration reform and the state of immigration enforcement under Obama wasn't so much better than Trump's that I yearn for the return of a Democratic presidency. So yeah - both sides erode my faith in the system. Just because I think one candidate in this election is worse doesn't mean I'm not angry at the pathetic counter from the Democrats.
- Retric 6y ago
  Counting everyone is literally what’s in the constitution. Remember, when the country was formed immigration wasn’t some complex thing you just showed up. Picture an immigration official trying to turn back a ship full of slaves because they where undocumented or missing paperwork. Meanwhile they still counted as 3/5th person in the official count.
  - TallGuyShort 6y ago
    I'd be fine with that, but let's be clear that that's not the system the Democrats move towards. Instead we have this weird system where a bunch of people jump through hoops to be here legally and a bunch of people don't, and Democrats pick and choose when they care about either one. There's no predictability, rule of law, consistency or sense on this issue from either party. I began immigration to the US under a Democratic administration and finished it at the end of a Democratic controlled Congress and another Democratic administration. It was consistently a badly run, non-sensical process. So FOH with claims that Democrats would like a country with open borders or that they're much better at running a sane process.
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      It really looks like you’re conflating policy with bureaucracy.
      - TallGuyShort 6y ago
        Open borders isn't their policy either. A census that just counts people isn't their policy either. Source: censuses I've taken under Democratic exrcutives asked me plenty of other questions. And even if those things were their policy, if the bureaucracy is still the same, what difference does it really make? The article concerns itself with links between how a bureaucracy is run and policies. This thread of conversation deals with people's faith in a "system".
        6y ago
Retric 6y ago
It might not be close to 50:50 but it’s not 95:5. Less tainted is still tainted. When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically. Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue.
- rc_mob 6y ago
  Sure. But point is saying “both sides” right now is a harmful thing to say. The current Republican party is doing far more damage to democracy than any other in recent memory.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    Sadly doing more harm doesn’t prevent each side from attacking the other on this issue. Having a consistent stance that every vote should count resonances in a way that picking specific issues just doesn’t. I am not saying you can’t play the game. It’s a terrible idea to split your states votes while the electoral collage is in it’s current form. Acknowledging this is how things are, and we should come up with a better solution is fine. Fighting each issue separately isn’t.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Nobody is gerrymandering to give minorities districts. People are either splitting minorities between several districts in order to keep them from having a say, or packing them all into one district to keep surrounding districts from having Democratic majorities (and to attack people having a problem with the shape of the district as attackers of the only district representing that minority.) > Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue. Only in the 21st century do voting issues only become political when they can be looked at in terms of race. "Political" means about the process of governance, not "when minorities or women have a complaint."

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago

I agree, the Democrats are responsible for 95% of the problem.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

And I wish people would stop defending the other side in that 5% as if 5% was okay.

Schiendelman 6y ago
When someone claims it’s 50%, it’s critical to point out when it’s actually 5%, or corrective resources are misallocated. Focusing as much on the 5% as the 95% is the exact mechanism by which the 95% is allowed to get that bad.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  I would argue that "how dare you talk about the 5% given there's a 95% about, what do you mean equal enforcement of uniform rules, anyone who is concerned about anything but the 95% is a moral monster" is also part of how the 95% got so bad. People have built-in game theory enough to be highly sensitive to others trying to set up unequal enforcement.

TallGuyShort 6y ago

I don't understand the Democratic side here either. There's a question of citizenship, but census data is used to determine allocation of electoral college votes. The electoral college system being something that I support but that Democrats keep trying to undermine. Yeah if you come here undocumented, or illegally, there's pretty natural consequences. I don't think anyone should ignore that. And they seem to want undocumented immigrants to be treated at the same level as legally naturalized citizens, but they rarely take any opportunities for immigration reform and the state of immigration enforcement under Obama wasn't so much better than Trump's that I yearn for the return of a Democratic presidency. So yeah - both sides erode my faith in the system. Just because I think one candidate in this election is worse doesn't mean I'm not angry at the pathetic counter from the Democrats.

Retric 6y ago
Counting everyone is literally what’s in the constitution. Remember, when the country was formed immigration wasn’t some complex thing you just showed up. Picture an immigration official trying to turn back a ship full of slaves because they where undocumented or missing paperwork. Meanwhile they still counted as 3/5th person in the official count.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  I'd be fine with that, but let's be clear that that's not the system the Democrats move towards. Instead we have this weird system where a bunch of people jump through hoops to be here legally and a bunch of people don't, and Democrats pick and choose when they care about either one. There's no predictability, rule of law, consistency or sense on this issue from either party. I began immigration to the US under a Democratic administration and finished it at the end of a Democratic controlled Congress and another Democratic administration. It was consistently a badly run, non-sensical process. So FOH with claims that Democrats would like a country with open borders or that they're much better at running a sane process.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    It really looks like you’re conflating policy with bureaucracy.
    - TallGuyShort 6y ago
      Open borders isn't their policy either. A census that just counts people isn't their policy either. Source: censuses I've taken under Democratic exrcutives asked me plenty of other questions. And even if those things were their policy, if the bureaucracy is still the same, what difference does it really make? The article concerns itself with links between how a bureaucracy is run and policies. This thread of conversation deals with people's faith in a "system".
      - 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

It might not be close to 50:50 but it’s not 95:5. Less tainted is still tainted. When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically. Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue.

rc_mob 6y ago
Sure. But point is saying “both sides” right now is a harmful thing to say. The current Republican party is doing far more damage to democracy than any other in recent memory.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  Sadly doing more harm doesn’t prevent each side from attacking the other on this issue. Having a consistent stance that every vote should count resonances in a way that picking specific issues just doesn’t. I am not saying you can’t play the game. It’s a terrible idea to split your states votes while the electoral collage is in it’s current form. Acknowledging this is how things are, and we should come up with a better solution is fine. Fighting each issue separately isn’t.
pessimizer 6y ago
Nobody is gerrymandering to give minorities districts. People are either splitting minorities between several districts in order to keep them from having a say, or packing them all into one district to keep surrounding districts from having Democratic majorities (and to attack people having a problem with the shape of the district as attackers of the only district representing that minority.) > Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue. Only in the 21st century do voting issues only become political when they can be looked at in terms of race. "Political" means about the process of governance, not "when minorities or women have a complaint."