"The Supreme Court’s attacks on voting rights are about rigging elections for Republicans," said Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/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.
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.
No, there are limits to state powers. Gerrymandering is essentially disenfranchising some voters.