3 ms·

Another approach is to incorporate that neighborhood as its own independent city. I think we should think about these issues creatively, while sticking with the

Another approach is to incorporate that neighborhood as its own independent city. I think we should think about these issues creatively, while sticking with the idea whatever the goal, we should approach it directly, rather than achieving the effect accidentally, as a side effect of some other design decision.

zamfi 4y ago
Your proposal is to literally expel from government the people who inhabit a minority neighborhood? Setting entirely aside the questions of morality, you also lose economies of scale by doing this, and there are already hierarchies that enable local governance as well as local representation in regional governance. I'm not saying there aren't ways to improve the system, but what tptacek is trying to say is that "this shit is complicated and all about trade-offs, and you can't always get everything you want". In some ways it's the definition of a wicked problem. It's not about "creative problem-solving towards some goal" it's about balancing competing goals from competing stakeholders. The status quo has stakeholders who benefit and will not like change, and will not like the characterization of the status quo as "an accident" or "side effects of some other design decision".
- lkrubner 4y ago
  I think I was clear. My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity. Everyone in a city should be free to vote for all candidates for city council, everyone in a region should be free to vote for all candidates for the regional assembly, everyone in a country should be free to vote for all candidates for the National Assembly. But if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision. This sentence has no coherent meaning: "It's not about "creative problem-solving towards some goal" it's about balancing competing goals from competing stakeholders. " There is no meaningful contrast between the two phrases.
  - zamfi 4y ago
    > I think I was clear. My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity You said to have them incorporate their own city. This seems different? > There is no meaningful contrast between the two phrases. Sure there is: in these cases, there is no single well-defined all-encompassing goal, and it may not be possible to define one.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      "You said to have them incorporate their own city. This seems different?" Everyone in a polity (a town or region or nation or perhaps special district) should be free to vote for every candidate running for that polity. The polity should have no geographic sub-divisions. If, as was mentioned above, a neighborhood in Chicago has a special culture, then: its residents have their city concerns met when they participate in city elections, and they have their regional concerns met when they participate in regional elections, and they have their national concerns met when they participate in national elections. But if you decided that their culture was so special, and deserved so much special protection, that the above was not good enough, then my suggestion is that the neighborhood should incorporate as its own city. Instead of being a neighborhood in Chicago, it should be an independent city with its own elections. As I said, if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      "Sure there is: in these cases, there is no single well-defined all-encompassing goal, and it may not be possible to define one." I was referring to Thomas's goals. What does Thomas want to do? What is he trying to achieve? Whatever his goal is, he should approach that directly, without relying on accidental side effects of unrelated architectural decisions.
      - zamfi 4y ago
        Ok, I’ll bite: his goal is for every stakeholder to feel listened to, for their lives to get better, for no one to have an undue advantage, and for people to generally have what they need and want to the extent possible. What’s the next step, then?
tptacek 4y ago
What do cities have to do with congressional boundaries? Districts span cities.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity. Everyone in a city should be free to vote for all candidates for city council, everyone in a region should be free to vote for all candidates for the regional assembly, everyone in a country should be free to vote for all candidates for the National Assembly. But if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision. The neighborhood with the unique culture has voters who will express their interests in city, regional, and national elections, and that should be enough, but if you felt strongly that this unique neighborhood deserves additional protections, then my suggestion is that you pursue that goal directly. Incorporating that neighborhood as its own independent city would be a way of achieving that goal. About this: "What do cities have to do with congressional boundaries? Districts span cities." My point is that districts should not exist.

zamfi 4y ago

Your proposal is to literally expel from government the people who inhabit a minority neighborhood? Setting entirely aside the questions of morality, you also lose economies of scale by doing this, and there are already hierarchies that enable local governance as well as local representation in regional governance. I'm not saying there aren't ways to improve the system, but what tptacek is trying to say is that "this shit is complicated and all about trade-offs, and you can't always get everything you want". In some ways it's the definition of a wicked problem. It's not about "creative problem-solving towards some goal" it's about balancing competing goals from competing stakeholders. The status quo has stakeholders who benefit and will not like change, and will not like the characterization of the status quo as "an accident" or "side effects of some other design decision".

lkrubner 4y ago
I think I was clear. My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity. Everyone in a city should be free to vote for all candidates for city council, everyone in a region should be free to vote for all candidates for the regional assembly, everyone in a country should be free to vote for all candidates for the National Assembly. But if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision. This sentence has no coherent meaning: "It's not about "creative problem-solving towards some goal" it's about balancing competing goals from competing stakeholders. " There is no meaningful contrast between the two phrases.
- zamfi 4y ago
  > I think I was clear. My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity You said to have them incorporate their own city. This seems different? > There is no meaningful contrast between the two phrases. Sure there is: in these cases, there is no single well-defined all-encompassing goal, and it may not be possible to define one.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "You said to have them incorporate their own city. This seems different?" Everyone in a polity (a town or region or nation or perhaps special district) should be free to vote for every candidate running for that polity. The polity should have no geographic sub-divisions. If, as was mentioned above, a neighborhood in Chicago has a special culture, then: its residents have their city concerns met when they participate in city elections, and they have their regional concerns met when they participate in regional elections, and they have their national concerns met when they participate in national elections. But if you decided that their culture was so special, and deserved so much special protection, that the above was not good enough, then my suggestion is that the neighborhood should incorporate as its own city. Instead of being a neighborhood in Chicago, it should be an independent city with its own elections. As I said, if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "Sure there is: in these cases, there is no single well-defined all-encompassing goal, and it may not be possible to define one." I was referring to Thomas's goals. What does Thomas want to do? What is he trying to achieve? Whatever his goal is, he should approach that directly, without relying on accidental side effects of unrelated architectural decisions.
    - zamfi 4y ago
      Ok, I’ll bite: his goal is for every stakeholder to feel listened to, for their lives to get better, for no one to have an undue advantage, and for people to generally have what they need and want to the extent possible. What’s the next step, then?

tptacek 4y ago

What do cities have to do with congressional boundaries? Districts span cities.

lkrubner 4y ago
My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity. Everyone in a city should be free to vote for all candidates for city council, everyone in a region should be free to vote for all candidates for the regional assembly, everyone in a country should be free to vote for all candidates for the National Assembly. But if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision. The neighborhood with the unique culture has voters who will express their interests in city, regional, and national elections, and that should be enough, but if you felt strongly that this unique neighborhood deserves additional protections, then my suggestion is that you pursue that goal directly. Incorporating that neighborhood as its own independent city would be a way of achieving that goal. About this: "What do cities have to do with congressional boundaries? Districts span cities." My point is that districts should not exist.