Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I think this is the first time I've heard that requiring that people have the capacity to understand the issues they are voting on, and not be crazy, as oligarchy.

ol•i•gar•chy (ŏlˈĭ-gärˌkē, ōˈlĭ-)

n. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

n. Those making up such a government.

n. A state governed by a few persons.

Theoretically, average intelligence is an IQ of 100 (The last statistics for the US puts it at 98). So if the magic IQ numbers was set at 90, well over half the population would qualify.  Not great, but at least they'd comprehend the issues.

Now, let's look at the issue of transfer of power in a democracy.  In the US, the minority can elect the president. Rural areas have greater representation that population centers.  The judiciary is appointed on the basis of political view, rather than being fair and impartial judges. When one party has been Gerrymandering legislative districts for decades to deprive the other party of representation, tell me about that peaceful transfer of power thing, again.  People are trying to protect a democracy that no longer exists.  The right will not give up power peacefully.

Both major parties Gerrymander when they have control of statehouses.

[Robin Of House Hill]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Both major parties Gerrymander when they have control of statehouses.

It's a corruption of that democratic process that people keep talking about.  The Republicans have more skill in corrupting that process.

[baxus]

Because you said so, or do you have any data to back up such a claim?

[DMC]

The etymology of gerrymandering is when Elbridge Gerry - a founding father that attended the Constitutional Convention - signed a redistricting plan as Massachusetts governor in 1812 that included a district shaped like a salamander to benefit his party.  So yeah, while gerrymandering may be a corruption of the democratic process, it's one that's been around for a good while - without any (sane) calls for revolution.

A non-revolutionary solution has been to establish independent redistricting commissions, most notably in Arizona but since also in California, Washington, and Idaho.  While it's still early, whether this leads to more equitable/fair redistricting is still an open question - I've yet to see any empirical research on the matter.

[Robin Of House Hill]

 

http://www.svds.com/gerrymandering/

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/politics/gerrymandered-congressional-districts-compactness-by-state.html

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/26798-gerrymandering-rigged-the-2014-elections-to-republicans-advantage

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

http://wunc.org/post/duke-mathematicians-investigate-2012-election-results-north-carolina#stream/0

http://reclaimtheamericandream.org/organizations-gerrymander/

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2016/12/28/data-wonk-2016-election-results-prove-gerrymandering/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/01/gerrymandering_isnt_the_real_cause_of_polarization.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

A simpler solution is to eliminate single member districts altogether and then elect by proportionally within each state.

[Robin Of House Hill]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A simpler solution is to eliminate single member districts altogether and then elect by proportionally within each state.

Start chorus of "the city folk are taking over."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Start chorus of "the city folk are taking over."

No, that's why it is not nationwide proportional rep, but state by state.

[Robin Of House Hill]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, that's why it is not nationwide proportional rep, but state by state.

Almost every state has population centers, as well as rural areas.  The big cities are generally liberal and the rural areas are more conservative, so that sentiment exists at the state level, as well as notionally.  If each state is a single district, how do you proportion regional representation?

ETA:  Also, if you do that, the need for a bicameral legislature is removed, and I'd vote to eliminate the Senate.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/01/gerrymandering_isnt_the_real_cause_of_polarization.html

Not sure the point of all your links was, but like the one above.  Despite all the extant research demonstrating gerrymandering does not cause polarization, my students still don't seem to buy it because that's what they heard on TV/blogs.  Maybe they'll buy it if I show em a RCP article?

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A simpler solution is to eliminate single member districts altogether and then elect by proportionally within each state.

While it may be simple, it's far from easy or realistic.

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

 Theoretically, average intelligence is an IQ of 100 (The last statistics for the US puts it at 98). So if the magic IQ numbers was set at 90, well over half the population would qualify.  Not great, but at least they'd comprehend the issues.

 

IQ scores come from fitting the raw scores on the test onto a normal curve. An IQ score of 100 is NOT a "test score" but means that 50% of the persons who took the test the last time it was recalibrated scored higher and 50% lower than whatever the score that gets translated to "100" is on the test. The tests are recalibrated every decade or two, by the way, and the raw score needed to obtain a score of 100 has actually steadily risen during the last century. This is known as the "Flynn effect" and has happened all over the world. So in terms of the parts of intelligence measured by IQ tests (the parts that are highly correlated with success in a traditional school system), the evidence is that the average human being has actually gotten a lot smarter over the last century.

25% of people will always end up with IQ scores below 90 because that is the way scores are assigned. I think suddenly denying an entire quarter of the population the right to vote would itself be likely to cause a revolution.

I think you are underestimating the logistical nightmare of your proposal. To minimize the racial/ethnic and social class biases that are an almost inherent part of IQ tests, at a minimum to be fair you would have to give people individualized one-on-one IQ tests instead of relying on mass paper and pencil measures. The average time it takes to administer a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, one of the most commonly used one-on-one tests, is 75 minutes. Giving the entire population who wish to register to vote a 75 minute individualized test before every important election would surely be cost prohibitive. Now, as a psychology professor maybe I should be in favor of this because if enacted this proposal could be called the "psychology majors full employment act". But I can't see any society being willing to devote the resources that would be needed to do this on a long term basis.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Almost every state has population centers, as well as rural areas.  The big cities are generally liberal and the rural areas are more conservative, so that sentiment exists at the state level, as well as notionally.  If each state is a single district, how do you proportion regional representation?

ETA:  Also, if you do that, the need for a bicameral legislature is removed, and I'd vote to eliminate the Senate.

You can't change the Senate without unanimous consent.  States can assign representatives as they desire so long as it js a "Republican form of government".

[Hello World]

On 4/23/2017 at 9:10 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

ME,

I disagree with everything Spencer stands for and I think it was wrong for him to be punched.  I also think he deserved a smack in the mouth for what he says.  

Why does he have to be smacked in the mouth for spouting white nationalist rhetoric? Do you think most Japanese should be smacked in the mouth? Or Chinese or Turks or Arabs or Africans, etc? Because ethnonationalism is the norm outside of the western world.

[VarysTheSpider]

I kind of like the idea personally of rooting out the crazies and those who can't understand the issues properly. 

 

Although, I don't think we have to carry out psyche evaluations and IQ tests to do it. Clearly that just isn't practical and a logistical nightmare. Fortunately we have a lot of the information available already. 

 

For example, anyone with or has had a mental health issue can be removed from the voting register quite swiftly. The mentally handicapped and anyone with a learning disability are out. If you can't speak the native language you obviously can't really understand the politics of the country, so you're gone. If you have a criminal record, forget about it. If you've ever been a member of an extreme political party or made some off colour comments online, fuck off. 

 

The best thing of course is that after each election the government can monitor the results, and adjust the criteria appropriately.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Why does he have to be smacked in the mouth for spouting white nationalist rhetoric? Do you think most Japanese should be smacked in the mouth? Or Chinese or Turks or Arabs or Africans, etc? Because ethnonationalism is the norm outside of the western world.

He doesn't have to be.  I think hitting him is wrong, rationally.  Emotionally, I like seeing neo-nazi's get smacked in the mouth.

[Hello World]

It's wrong to call him a neo-nazi, as that term carries with it the baggage of the nazis having murdered millions of people. I doubt that Spencer wants to do that. But like I said, the core of his ideology is prevalent in most cultures/societies around the world.

[Robin Of House Hill]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

IQ scores come from fitting the raw scores on the test onto a normal curve. An IQ score of 100 is NOT a "test score" but means that 50% of the persons who took the test the last time it was recalibrated scored higher and 50% lower than whatever the score that gets translated to "100" is on the test. The tests are recalibrated every decade or two, by the way, and the raw score needed to obtain a score of 100 has actually steadily risen during the last century. This is known as the "Flynn effect" and has happened all over the world. So in terms of the parts of intelligence measured by IQ tests (the parts that are highly correlated with success in a traditional school system), the evidence is that the average human being has actually gotten a lot smarter over the last century.

25% of people will always end up with IQ scores below 90 because that is the way scores are assigned. I think suddenly denying an entire quarter of the population the right to vote would itself be likely to cause a revolution.

I think you are underestimating the logistical nightmare of your proposal. To minimize the racial/ethnic and social class biases that are an almost inherent part of IQ tests, at a minimum to be fair you would have to give people individualized one-on-one IQ tests instead of relying on mass paper and pencil measures. The average time it takes to administer a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, one of the most commonly used one-on-one tests, is 75 minutes. Giving the entire population who wish to register to vote a 75 minute individualized test before every important election would surely be cost prohibitive. Now, as a psychology professor maybe I should be in favor of this because if enacted this proposal could be called the "psychology majors full employment act". But I can't see any society being willing to devote the resources that would be needed to do this on a long term basis.

You are correct.  I would posted more elaborately, but the arthritis in the fingers of my left hand decided to go active, so I'm being a bit sparse in my verbiage.

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You can't change the Senate without unanimous consent.  States can assign representatives as they desire so long as it js a "Republican form of government".

That doesn't change the fact that if all states are each a single district, that the Senate becomes redundant.  Honestly, Id prefer to do away do away with states, altogether and simply elect the 400 with the highest number of votes cast, by direct election.  At least then, it really would be 1 person = 1 vote.

2 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Why does he have to be smacked in the mouth for spouting white nationalist rhetoric? Do you think most Japanese should be smacked in the mouth? Or Chinese or Turks or Arabs or Africans, etc? Because ethnonationalism is the norm outside of the western world.

Supremacists of any flavor should be punched in the mouth.  Oral or written argument fails with such people.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Robin,

You are going to have a very difficult time with a Unitary government in the US.  Are you really going to attempt to say that one goverment can do everything that Port Royal, South Carolina; Spokane, Washington; Los Angeles, California; Omaha, Nebraska; Bangor, Maine; and Miami Florida need doing?  They are all incredibly different and unique locations.  A Unitary government is going to attempt one size fits all solutions.  That will not work across a continent.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Hello World said:

It's wrong to call him a neo-nazi, as that term carries with it the baggage of the nazis having murdered millions of people. I doubt that Spencer wants to do that. But like I said, the core of his ideology is prevalent in most cultures/societies around the world.

Okay, I still, rationally, think its wrong to smack people in the mouth.  Emotionally, I like seeing white supremicists get smacked in the mouth.

[Robin Of House Hill]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

You are going to have a very difficult time with a Unitary government in the US.  Are you really going to attempt to say that one goverment can do everything that Port Royal, South Carolina; Spokane, Washington; Los Angeles, California; Omaha, Nebraska; Bangor, Maine; and Miami Florida need doing?  They are all incredibly different and unique locations.  A Unitary government is going to attempt one size fits all solutions.  That will not work across a continent.  

I have no problem with hierarchical functions and regional commissions to attend to regional matters.  But 51 redundant governments, 51 separate sets of laws and juris prudence. If for no other reason than equal protection under the law should really be equal protection, the body od law needs to be universal.