DNC staffers call for conflict, anarchy in effort to undermine Trump.

[Libertarian01]

What we really need is for people to revert to being intelligence seeking individuals who do not place so much value on whatever tribe they self-identify with the most.

We are not who we are like, and who we identify with does not make us who we are.

Alas, we have all invested too much selfworth into our own private tribes.

Doug

 

[miguel]

What we really need is for people to revert to being intelligence seeking individuals who do not place so much value on whatever tribe they self-identify with the most.

We are not who we are like, and who we identify with does not make us who we are.

Alas, we have all invested too much selfworth into our own private tribes.

Doug

I agree with this 99% but will play devil's advocate a little, since you are a smart guy and I always enjoy hearing your point of view!

At what point does "tribe" loyalty kick in? I'm thinking of the biblical admonition about to not be lukewarm. I don't mean this religiously. Rather, at some point, being a "middle man" in a battle (intellectual or physical) can be a risky business.

 

[KG1]

I look at Trump as a stop gap vote in this election. I will be voting as such.

Forgot to mention a BIG eff-u to the GOP establishment, the DOJ, FBI and last but by all means not least the POS "media"

All this dictates my vote. Trump is my "Screw -U" vote.

 

[BugI02]

CGP Grey has a video that explains the shortest-splitline algorithm for determining districts. You can find the video if you want more information on how the algorithm works.

Here's what Indiana would look like using that algorithm:

Nearly 75% of Indiana's population is classified as urban. Just at a glance these districts look more competitive than what we have now since some of the urban areas are lumped more with rural. Urban (generally includes suburbs) areas tend to vote Democrat at a 3:2 ratio. The shortest splitline algorithm could probably be tweaked to account for that.

Nice! I was not aware of this particular algorithm. I would like to see any system tweaked to dilute urban power concentration, though. That's why I favor the hexagonal grid with the meeting point of several subdividing large urban areas. Of course, once you allow 'tweaking' the system to achieve a preconcieved desired result, such as diluting urban power concentration, we've probably opened a whole 'nother special interest can of worms.

I was looking for some way to keep the intersts of urban areas from overwhelming the rest, in both local and national politics (thinking of the Republicans/Conservatives in CA for instance) and more competitive districts would seem to hold some possibility. But we must pay homage to the law of unintended consequences, more competitive districts could change the balance of power in a state ( I think urban areas encompassing a few, dense districts was originally a strategy to dilute the power/influence of urban dwellers, no?). Plenty of details for the devil to operate in, unfortunately.

T. Lex, I would want to experiment at the state level, preferably a state like CA where a sizeable portion of the population may not be well represented by their current districting system. I quite probably place too much faith in math but wanted some underlying, 'open source' code whose outcome could be tested against the formulae. By requiring each polygon/hexagon to be of substantially similar area as well as population, adjustable only to achieve parity, I think we could place mathematical underpinnings on the need to segment dense urban areas

 

[T.Lex]

...I would like to see any system tweaked to dilute urban power concentration, though. That's why I favor the hexagonal grid with the meeting point of several subdividing large urban areas. Of course, once you allow 'tweaking' the system to achieve a preconcieved desired result, such as diluting urban power concentration, we've probably opened a whole 'nother special interest can of worms.

Exactly.

At some level, a policy choice must be made about the best way to skin this cat.

The system we have now is certainly not mathematical, but is instead based on a kind of trust-in-self-interest. Both sides, when in power, seek to serve the interest of their own power. Since no one party has been able to maintain power, even with the advantages of having it, the system can be said to be "working."

Personally, I have absolutely no problem re-assessing whether improvements can be made. But we should not ignore the policy decisions that are at the foundation.

For instance, since you and I are relatively conservative, in our self-interest we would like to see dilution of urban liberalism. Generally, though, the urban liberals get a vote, too. (Or "two" depending on which conspiracy theory.)

Based on policy, I think we'd generally end up in the same result that we have now. Some "protected" liberal/conservative areas and a bunch of contested districts. Maybe more, which may or may not be good for conservativism.

 

[HoughMade]

Here's what Indiana would look like using that algorithm:

That diagonal line across NWI appears to bifurcate my living room.

 

[indiucky]

That diagonal line across NWI appears to bifurcate my living room.

Which side is the TV on and what side is the couch on?

 

[HoughMade]

Which side is the TV on and what side is the couch on?

The couch gets Visclosky, as far as I can tell.

 

[miguel]

Looks like one pajama boy has been sacrificed to protect the rest.

James O'Keefe Gets Another Scalp: Subject of Undercover Video Ousted - Breitbart

 

[Libertarian01]

I agree with this 99% but will play devil's advocate a little, since you are a smart guy and I always enjoy hearing your point of view!

At what point does "tribe" loyalty kick in? I'm thinking of the biblical admonition about to not be lukewarm. I don't mean this religiously. Rather, at some point, being a "middle man" in a battle (intellectual or physical) can be a risky business.

I believe the tribe counts but it isn't who we as individuals are. I believe too many people vote R because they identify with R, not because of their love of the R candidate(s). The same goes for D's, L's, G's, etc.

I have voted in recent elections for libertarians because I can actually say I liked my guy! How many R's can say that, or D's? However, had Sen Paul actually won the R nomination I probably would have voted for him. I am not so tribal as to overlook a very good candidate from another tribe with whom I agree on so much.

I believe every human being should stay loyal to an ideology, or rather a hierarchy of ideologies. For me, I put personal freedom way above safety. That is why I am ready to concede that while we may(?) be safer with a strong NSA spying program I am still against it because I put our right to privacy above our safety.

The problem I have seen is that too many people vote based upon their tribal identity. I knew a very nice man who was a strong union democrat. He continued to support Pres Clinton even though there were severe problems with NAFTA as seen from an American worker protection viewpoint. His loyalty to his tribe overrode his ideology of strong worker protection.

To my thinking ideology is the only thing that matters, yet it is completely intangible. What do we believe in? What are our core values? Even though I may disagree with someone I respect the hell out of them for holding true to their beliefs.

Also, I don't mind if people change their beliefs over the years, given new data and information. There is NOTHING wrong with that. To me this is like someone using a method in a pitch black maze to find the door and they find a flashlight. It would be illogical to continue to use follow their olde belief system when the flashlight provides illumination to find their way. Of course, they could also stumble across a map of the maze and yet again change their way.

The maze is our view on an infinite variety of concepts and ideas. What is the role of government? How far do our rights go? Are unions good or bad, or indifferent. How much, if any, should we protect the environment and at what cost? Many of us find a tribe that is aligned with our current priorities so we join the tribe. However, we should realize that sometimes the tribe has abandoned its claimed goals, or we find a flashlight that leads us to a new thinking.

We must be ever watchful on the tribe and its direction, to see if it has abandoned its original goals. We must also be willing to leave the tribe when we assimilate new data. Alas, most are unable or unwilling to do so.

Regards,

Doug

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh my gosh, politics is rough and tough and mean!

 

[actaeon277]

Looks like one pajama boy has been sacrificed to protect the rest.

James O'Keefe Gets Another Scalp: Subject of Undercover Video Ousted - Breitbart

Would be nice if he could only get jobs digging ditches after this.

 

[miguel]

Ole boy is on the war path...

Second Scalp: James O'Keefe Video Forces Another Democratic Operative to Resign - Breitbart

 

[Tombs]

Ole boy is on the war path...

Second Scalp: James O'Keefe Video Forces Another Democratic Operative to Resign - Breitbart

This kills me, absolutely slays me

O’Keefe executed a plot that involved the use of trained operatives using false identifications, disguises and elaborate false covers to infiltrate our firm and other consulting firms, in order to steal campaign plans, and goad unsuspecting individuals into making careless statements on hidden cameras.
Those of us who are involved in political work because we believe deeply in progressive values are saddened that those on the right are using dirty tricks in order to pursue their political agenda rather than engage in an honest debate about ideas.
I will not aid Mr. O’Keefe’s despicable efforts to distract from the critical choice American voters face November 8th.

Yes, because it's not dirty tricks to plan election fraud and undermine democracy to spread oppressive ideals that can't survive without crime being used to push them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Nice! I was not aware of this particular algorithm. I would like to see any system tweaked to dilute urban power concentration, though. That's why I favor the hexagonal grid with the meeting point of several subdividing large urban areas. Of course, once you allow 'tweaking' the system to achieve a preconcieved desired result, such as diluting urban power concentration, we've probably opened a whole 'nother special interest can of worms.

I was looking for some way to keep the intersts of urban areas from overwhelming the rest, in both local and national politics (thinking of the Republicans/Conservatives in CA for instance) and more competitive districts would seem to hold some possibility. But we must pay homage to the law of unintended consequences, more competitive districts could change the balance of power in a state ( I think urban areas encompassing a few, dense districts was originally a strategy to dilute the power/influence of urban dwellers, no?). Plenty of details for the devil to operate in, unfortunately.

T. Lex, I would want to experiment at the state level, preferably a state like CA where a sizeable portion of the population may not be well represented by their current districting system. I quite probably place too much faith in math but wanted some underlying, 'open source' code whose outcome could be tested against the formulae. By requiring each polygon/hexagon to be of substantially similar area as well as population, adjustable only to achieve parity, I think we could place mathematical underpinnings on the need to segment dense urban areas

Would it be possible to, instead of segmenting this or that area, gerrymandering, etc., to assign representation by last name at birth, or perhaps by date of birth (as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd....365th, and some system to account for 2/29)? The Constitution calls for representation by population, and that's still possible, but instead of choosing who one's representative is by where one lives, we instead go by some other criterion. This would eliminate the power of large places like NYC/LA/Chicago, though it would concentrate the power into names like Smith and Jones. The idea has just come to me and I earnestly acknowledge that it may be horribly flawed, but that's why I'm suggesting it. Please poke whatever holes you may find in this idea. If it stands after that, it may be worth pushing (not that it will go anywhere, of course. )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Tombs]

Would it be possible to, instead of segmenting this or that area, gerrymandering, etc., to assign representation by last name at birth, or perhaps by date of birth (as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd....365th, and some system to account for 2/29)? The Constitution calls for representation by population, and that's still possible, but instead of choosing who one's representative is by where one lives, we instead go by some other criterion. This would eliminate the power of large places like NYC/LA/Chicago, though it would concentrate the power into names like Smith and Jones. The idea has just come to me and I earnestly acknowledge that it may be horribly flawed, but that's why I'm suggesting it. Please poke whatever holes you may find in this idea. If it stands after that, it may be worth pushing (not that it will go anywhere, of course. )

Blessings,
Bill

Why not use social security numbers instead?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Why not use social security numbers instead?

IIRC, those are assigned by the area in which you were born, i.e. which state. I'm looking to separate the location from the criterion by which one chooses for whom s/he votes.

Really want to throw a monkey wrench into the mix? In the age of the internet, whereby one may view the proceedings on the floor of the legislature, allow citizens to change the representative who represents them "on the fly". That is, for example, if the state legislature is voting on gun rights, I have no doubt we would all choose Sen. Jim Tomes. OTOH, if they were discussing medical marijuana, some of us might want Sen. Tallian representing us.

A given representative's voting power would be affected by what percentage of the voters s/he represented *for that vote*. Sen. Tomes or Rep. Lucas would likely be able to completely outvote ALL of the Democrats, all by themselves, on gun issues. This could also allow us to select a representative that supported libertarian ideals to pass bills that the General Assembly might otherwise wish to sweep under the rug and not allow to be heard.

Just spitballing in this post, but I am interested in viewpoints on the previous one, #55, above.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Tombs]

IIRC, those are assigned by the area in which you were born, i.e. which state. I'm looking to separate the location from the criterion by which one chooses for whom s/he votes.

Really want to throw a monkey wrench into the mix? In the age of the internet, whereby one may view the proceedings on the floor of the legislature, allow citizens to change the representative who represents them "on the fly". That is, for example, if the state legislature is voting on gun rights, I have no doubt we would all choose Sen. Jim Tomes. OTOH, if they were discussing medical marijuana, some of us might want Sen. Tallian representing us.

A given representative's voting power would be affected by what percentage of the voters s/he represented *for that vote*. Sen. Tomes or Rep. Lucas would likely be able to completely outvote ALL of the Democrats, all by themselves, on gun issues. This could also allow us to select a representative that supported libertarian ideals to pass bills that the General Assembly might otherwise wish to sweep under the rug and not allow to be heard.

Just spitballing in this post, but I am interested in viewpoints on the previous one, #55, above.

Blessings,
Bill

That's a very interesting idea, I just have concerns about how much fraud through botnets and proxies you'd end up with, unless it was tied to your driver's license number.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

They are dumb.

"Anarchy" actually helps Trump. So does terrorism.

Except when Trump calls the election rigged.

After that, it gets confusing.

Bernie is still saying it's rigged, but for some reason, when he says it, he gets a pass. When Trump says it, it's the end of the world.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's a very interesting idea, I just have concerns about how much fraud through botnets and proxies you'd end up with, unless it was tied to your driver's license number.

Once you're a registered voter, it could be tied to your voter ID number. The question is how to validate who has those voter ID numbers.