Destroying the GOP sounds good to me tbh
Win/win.
Term limits for Supreme Court justices is a good idea but increasing the number is not. More Supreme Court justices is more spending of taxpayers money. Supreme Court justices should serve 6 years. After 6 years, they would have to be reappointed and approved.
Gerrymandering could be stopped by having a computer program draw congressional districts or proportional representation. Democrats should propose and push for these ideas.
Computer programs don’t inherently remove bias. If anything, they obfuscate it. We wouldn’t have less gerrymandering from a computer program, we’d have more. We could require absolutely open and transparent code and data, and that still wouldn’t be enough because the manipulations would be performed right in the open for everyone to see, but it would be ‘okay’ because it’s not illegal. Much like our current system allows for gerrymandering for political purposes, this wouldn’t address the issue, it would just make hiding and obfuscating the reasoning easier.
And as for electing supreme Court judges, if you thought presidential elections and political ads were bad now, it would be 100 times worse if we have to put up with political ads for judges on top of that. It would put more money in politics which is absolutely the wrong direction to go. We need a bigger, more representative supreme Court. We need more courts in general, and more judges to get through the cases that are already in the backlog. Your proposals would exacerbate our existing issues, not help us.
Computer programs don’t inherently remove bias. If anything, they obfuscate it.
That’s incorrect. I could make a completely fair state map with ArcGIS, voter data & about a week’s time. It’s the people working the software that are the problem.
Assuming you have a definition of fairness that actually makes sense, that’s great. Now have a few thousand other people come in with other maps, claiming theirs are fairer than yours. What do you do then?
It’s not a technology problem. It’s a political one.
And while you’re at it, maybe consider dumping ESRI and using something like QGIS instead.
Gerrymandering could be stopped by having a computer program draw congressional districts or proportional representation.
Gerrymandered districts are generally computer-generated and have been since the late 1970s.
The fascist social media platform algorithms are all computer programs. There’s nothing inherently fair about something just because it’s been coded. It depends on who wrote it and for what purpose.
Correct, but the computer program would not be designed to gerrymander. Peer-review would ensure that it does not gerrymander.
In other news, Republican Congress mandates all states to use Grok, “MechaHitler” to redraw congressional districts.
/s
Mechal-Hitler would have to pass peer-review.
Peer review by whom?
If you mean an independent commission, some states already use those for redistricting. There’s no need for a computer program.
Or do you mean by state legislatures, that’s already what the most heavily gerrymandered states already use for redistricting. It would make no difference if they were simply “approving” a computer-generated district map (made with algorithms designed by whom?).
The computer program you suggest is entirely unnecessary and superfluous.
Peer-review by university professors of computer science. Since gerrymandering exists, a computer program is quite necessary.
Have you ever met a comp sci professor? They’re so cloistered, with no practical understanding of the world beyond the digital. They shouldn’t have anything to do with electoral reform.
Since gerrymandering exists, a computer program is quite necessary.
Gerrymandering has already been solved in most states by utilizing independent redistricting commissions. Only the most backward states still give that task to their legislatures.
That’s what’s desired. Someone who isn’t interested in politics just whether a computer program is biased. All states would have to use the winning computer program.
So now you’re saying the federal government should impose this computer algorithm on the states? Don’t you realize the constitution explicitly gives electoral power to the states?
Your idea just gets worse and worse the more you try to defend it.
Triple the SC Justices. The current number selected as they are now, on a rotating plan of renewal/term limits.
Another set voted on by the voters, also on a rotation.
Another set chosen by the SC itself by super majoroty selection.
Which jidges hear which cases is a subset selected at random.
If they get to choose a set, and that set is able to be a part of future choosing then don’t you get locked into one side or the other again?
Yes.
Adding justices won’t help.
What WILL help is make all Bitch McConnell’s tactics for thwarting democrats selecting justices illegal.
I prefer the idea of one SC Justice for each Federal Circuit, raised directly from the Circuit itself
The Fifth Circuit has entered the chat.
For the unaware, the fifth circuit court is packed with the most conservative judges in the country. Packing it was part of the Southern Strategy, because it allows conservatives to appeal liberal laws and reliably get in front of a batshit crazy conservative judge. Pretty much every time you see some sort of “federal judge overturns liberal law” headline, it is from the fifth circuit.
Another set chosen by the SC itself by super majoroty selection.
Why this and not just have them also voted on by the people or at least Congress?
This seems like something the founding fathers would’ve devised to protect against “mob rule”(actual democracy)
Bingo. The biggest won the supreme Court ever got was the ability to pick and choose what they want to hear and when based on the idea that they only have so much time and so many justices.
Increase the justices and make any case seen by a random pool of justices so everything can be heard and you can’t shop for the justices you want to hear your case.
