from the non-voting-person-OR-non-person-voter dept.
The LA Times and just about every news outlet has a story about a Supreme Court case which could change how election districts are drawn up.
At issue before the court was the basic question of who gets counted when election districts are drawn: Is it all people, including children, prisoners and immigrants who are not eligible to vote? Or is it only adult citizens who are eligible voters?
The case centers around districts with heavy concentrations of people not eligible to vote (generally illegal aliens). These are counted by the census, and that district gets legislative representation based on their presence, even when there are fewer actual voters in those districts. The plaintiffs claim this give more weight to voters in such district, over an equal number of voters in other districts.
The challengers cited the example of two Texas state Senate districts, both of which have about 800,000 residents. One rural district in east Texas, where plaintiff Sue Evenwel resides, had about 574,000 citizens who are eligible to vote; the other district in the Rio Grande valley had only 372,000 people who are eligible to vote. The lawsuit in Evenwel vs. Abbott argues this is unconstitutional.
Do Soylentils see the allocation of election districts as a process to distribute legislative seats equally over the number of voters, or equally over the number of people (regardless of whether those people can vote or not)? (Or is this where we launch off on the usual discussions of a total redesign of the US Voting system to some totally different mathematical model?)
Related Stories
The single largest donor to any super-pacs or other outside groups so far in this political season is Robert Mercer, owner of the Big Data firm Cambridge Analytica. Besides donating cash, Mercer has donated analysis work. He paid mechanical turk workers for access to their facebook accounts and by association access to data about anyone who had unwittingly friended those mturk workers.
The goal seems to be the gathering of detailed psychological profiles to enable "micro-targeting" of campaign advertisements. In a reversal from typical claims about targeted advertising, political micro-targeting is not about showing you candidates you might like to vote for but instead figuring out how to social-engineer you into liking the candidate that paid for the advertising. They are looking to press people's buttons and hope to figure out which buttons each of us are most sensitive to and then tell each voter exactly what they want to hear and only what they want to hear, leaving out anything that might inconveniently cause them to be skeptical.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kilo110 on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:25AM
You're forgetting children, legal immigrants, and prisoners. This isn't only about illegal immigrants
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:46AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:33PM
In other words, a shameless vote grab by Desperate democrats for welfare gimme-gimmes.
Let's hope it fails. We dont need kids and leeches voting.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:10PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @04:20PM
You have no idea what you are talking about.
No one is going to let kids or illegal immigrants vote.
This has to do in whether they count for districting purposes. The hope on the Right is that they don't, which will allow them to gerrymander the districts worse then they are.
If anyone is playing games here it is the right. (Not saying the left doesnt do shady stuff, Hillary..., BUT in this instance its shady on the right side of the political divide. )
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:40PM
The reasoning may make sense, but I suspect this is more about justifying an excuse for some seriously biased gerrymandering rather than fairer legislative representation.
I work for the US Census Bureau, on the Decennial Census. It saddens me that politicians take our hard work and use it to gerrymander. We spend a lot of time trying to make sure we get good data (it's not perfect; counting 300,000,000 people is hard), and everyone I know at work wants whatever program they work on to be the best it can be.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Alfred on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:41PM
I call BS.
*start music*
One of these things is not like the Other, One of these things just doesn't belong...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:32PM
If you say "Government is the problem", get yourself elected, then (once inside government) do everything you can to wreck government, the problem is -not- government.
The problem is YOU.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:09PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Funny) by curunir_wolf on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:31PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday December 11 2015, @06:51AM
Are they really that much smaller than native Texans?
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:18PM
Are you real, real sure about that? http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ [pewhispanic.org]
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @04:26AM
You're measuring 2 different things.
1) Hispanic includes far more than Mexico. It also includes Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and a whole bunch of countries south of Mexico.
2) Immigrants != heritage. There are many hispanics born here that are not immigrants. While the growth has slowed down, it is still growing [pewresearch.org].
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:47AM
What about felonious children who also happen to be illegal immigrants? Won't somebody think of them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:43PM
You're forgetting children, legal immigrants, and prisoners.
They're all right there in the summary:
Is it all people, including children, prisoners and immigrants who are not eligible to vote?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:26PM
Slaves were once counted, at only 3/5 per person. Their numbers were useful for slave owners wishing to increase their own power, though of course the slaves could not vote. Their white masters voted for them :p.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:20PM
In my view, the 3/5ths clause is the strongest argument that demonstrates that the framers had intended that all people should be counted, regardless of their ability to vote.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:00PM
Except the fact that women (or, you know, half of the citizens of this country) counted for purposes of apportionment and districting but not for purposes of voting seems to put that into question.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by scruffybeard on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:24PM
Not sure I follow what you are saying. One of the questions before the court is what was the framers intended. How did they want the population counted for purposes of representation. From article one, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Women were free persons, and while they could not vote, they were to be counted for purposes of assigning representatives to congress from that state.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fishybell on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:08PM
Exactly. The framers explicitly included all children and women who could not vote, and all slaves (or at least, 3/5ths of every slave) in the "respective Numbers." That not only implies, but is direct evidence that the constitution's final version (which was very much a compromise, which is often lost in today's discussions) explicitly included non-voters in the tally of how much representation a state would have.
The 3/5ths argument may be a very strong argument for the framers wanting to give representation to non-voters, but the women and children argument is a fully 2/5ths stronger argument, which is what I believe the grandparent post was trying to explain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:44PM
I think that they should give representative count to all citizens, of any age, prisoner or not. BUT they should NOT count illegal immigrants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:51PM
explicitly included slaves
FTFY, and it was the slavers that benefited from that particular clause. it doesn't help determine whether "free persons" should include non-voters.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:39PM
That was superceded by the Fourteenth Amendment:
So it's not as simple as you seem to think. You have to look at that, and the 19th (which gave women the right to vote). That is, after the War of Northern Aggression created a stronger central government, representation counting changed to eligible voters, not simply "persons".
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @04:32AM
Does that mean the next act of electioneering could be allowing convicted felons to vote in certain states?
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @04:30AM
(I hate to do this, but FTFY)
Remember, it was a compromise [wikipedia.org]. I'm not sure either side was on the right side of history there.
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:40PM
The case centers around districts with heavy concentrations of people not eligible to vote (generally illegal aliens).
So Roswell?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:58PM
Ayy, lmao.
(Score: 3, Funny) by BK on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:02PM
Only if they respond to the census. They may need to show a rental agreement for wherever they park their saucer.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday December 11 2015, @12:07AM
They would definitely need to establish proof of residency to vote: Valid documents could include any of the following:
1. Unexpired visa from their home planet
2. Cygnus Consular card, which can be obtained from their planets embassy at White Sands
3. Utility bills such as H3 refuelling, FTL phone bills, etc
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:48PM
Interesting. In case of children, I'd argue it is fair because the voters will likely vote in the best interest of the children. In case of illegal immigrants or prisoners I could imagine that voters might have some resentment and vote against the best interest of the non-voters. Should those two situations be considered separately?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:14PM
Did you know your head from your ass when you were a kid?
Of course you didn't, nobody does, and kids are generally more stupid now than when you and I were. If anything, I think the voting age should be raised to 25.
Or would you rather have a huge voting bloc vote for whomever promised them more candy-stores on every street corner, a constitutional right to fast internet and video games, and free tickets to see whatever whiny effeminate crypto-Christian crap kids call "music" nowadays?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:28PM
Your post has exactly zero relation to the post you "replied" to.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:31PM
I think there is a difference between giving children the right to vote, vs. the right to be represented. Should a child have the right to walk into a congressman's office, and ask to be heard on an issue? I would say yes, and the congressman can use his judgment to decide if their candy store concerns should be addressed or not, just like they do for every other issue that comes before them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:31PM
"like they do for every other issue that comes before them with a nice "campaign contribution" attached.
FTFY
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:53PM
Where did I ask for a right for kids to vote?!? Of course not! But while adult voters are likely to represent the interests of their kids, and therefore the kids should weigh in on their votes, the voters might be less likely to represent the best interests of the illegal immigrants.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:39PM
I plant on voting for whoever promises to fix that damn Turkey Farm gate!
They seem to keep escaping.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fritsd on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:56PM
You make it sound so hard..
"(Or is this where we launch off on the usual discussions of a total redesign of the US Voting system to some totally different mathematical model?)"
ooh a totally different mathematical model, that sounds complicated. One person one vote, how complicated is that??
The citizens of voting age of a town are registered in the voting book of their nearest ballot station, two weeks before the vote their voting passes are posted to their home address (I don't know how it works for homeless people).
When or if they come in to vote, they walk to the table with the volunteers, give their voting pass as identification (may/should be asked to see personal identfication), the volunteer 1 verifies their ID and says their name so the other volunteers can hear, volunteer 2 gets the voting pass from volunteer 1, looks up the name in the book, and if there is not yet a cross next to their name for that ballot, the volunteer crosses it with a pen so that the voter and the other volunteers can see, then in either case volunteer 2 rips up the voting pass and dumps it in the waste basket.
Now the voter is allowed the ballot paper and to approach an empty curtained cubicle, on the opposite side of the voting room from where the three volunteers sit. They cross which party or candidate they vote for with a red pencil attached to a sturdy string or chain (local government's not made of money, you know!). They fold the ballot paper so that nobody else can see what they voted.
Now the voter with the folded ballot in her hand is allowed to approach the ballot box in front of volunteer 3. Volunteer 3 makes sure the person in front of them sticks at most 1 piece of paper in the transparent ballot box (the other 2 volunteers can also see the ballot box).
If volunteer 3 notices that the voter hasn't put their ballot in the box, the other volunteers are informed of this, and volunteer 1 makes a note of a missing vote in the voting book.
If the voter says they did something wrong they have one re-try: they give their ballot to volunteer 1 who rips it up publicly and gives them 1 new one.
I've noticed it's usually quiet in the voting room (important business at hand).
Employers have to give their employees up to 2 hours off to vote.
There are procedures for all the complications that occur, such as giving someone else mandate to vote for you if you're sick or feeble. One person one mandate so a political party can't go "shopping" in an old people's home.
The procedure takes time, the counting takes hours (massively parallel though) but you only have to do it every four years. The volunteers cost coffee-money but it's an honour to serve your country's democracy in this way.
Fraud with anything of this is up to 6 years prison, similar to large scale weapons- and drugs trade, or aggravated robbery. If you don't take your democracy seriously, it doesn't take you seriously either.
This is from the Dutch law book: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004627/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_10-12-2015#AfdelingII_HoofdstukJ [overheid.nl].
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:25PM
Well, that's a nice description of the actual voting procedure, but that's not what the story is about. The story is about how to interpret the votes afterwards. That is, how to translate vote numbers into elected people.
The Dutch voting system is proportional, therefore the only thing that matters is the total number of votes for each party. But in a majority system, there's one candidate per district, and therefore it matters who is in which district.
You don't even have to consider the non-voters to see the problem. For example consider four cities of the same size, which are to be grouped in two voting districts, to determine two candidates. we assume all people vote, so there's also the same number of voters.
In cities A and B, there are 60% voters for the Foo party, and 40% voters for the Bar party. In cities C and D, there are 46% voters for Foo and 54% for Bar.
With a representative system (as the Dutch one), things would be clear: 53% of all voters voted for Foo, 47% voted for Bar, so each party gets one representative.
But with a majority system, tjhings are not that simple: There are two candidates, thus you need two voting districts. The obvious solution is to make each voting district consist of two of the cities.
Now assume that voting district 1 consists of cities A and B, while voting district 2 consists of cities C and D. Then in voting district 1, the Foo candidate gets 60% of the votes and wins, and in voting district 2, the Bar candidate gets 54% of the votes and wins, so same result, each party gets one candidate.
However now assume that cities A and C form district 1, and B and D form district 2. Then in both districts, the respective Foo candidate gets 53 percent of the votes, and this the Fii party gets both candidates, despite almost half of the people voting for Bar.
So you see, with majority voting systems, you can manipulate the outcome quite a lot by simply deciding on who is in which voting district.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fritsd on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:22PM
Thank you for your clear example and analysis. I completely agree. Especially your second example where party Foo gets 100% of the results from (A+C) and (B+D), with only (60+46)/2=53% of the votes, is striking.
The logical solution, then, is to get rid of the unfair majority system, and replace it by the simple and fair proportional system.
I may be an outsider but I read the Wikipedia article about so-called "gerrymandering" [wikipedia.org], you know ;-) just don't do it!
(Score: 2) by soylentsandor on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:42PM
At least Foo had the majority of the votes. In 2000, we learned a person can become president even when his opponent gets half a million [uh.edu] more votes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:27PM
That's because it's an indirect election, that is, you don't vote for the president, you vote for the people who then vote for the president.
Imagine there are only three states, Astate, Bestate and Cestate, with the same number of people each, and each one voting for one elector. In Astate and Bestate, 52% of all voters vote for Dick Head, and 48% vote for John Doe. In Cestate, 100% of the voters vote for John Doe. Thus Astate and Bestate get a Dick Head elector, while Cestate gets a John Do elector. Since the Electoral College has now a 2/3 majority for Dick Head, Dick Head gets president. However if you look at the voters, Dick Head got 34% of all votes, while John Doe got 66% of all votes. In other words, John Doe got almost twice as many votes as Dick Head, but Dick Head became president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:00PM
The whole problem disappears for a proportional representation system: Then the only thing that counts is how many votes were given for a party, not in which voting district those votes were given.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:23PM
If we're just gonna let kids vote, though, and also let whoever can get in and let them vote as well; then why be a country and have elections at all? Is destroying our national identity and what's left of our economy worth letting the Democrats have a few extra votes?
If I were president I would do away with work visa programs and station the National Guard at the borders with orders to shoot-to-kill anybody who tries to cross illegally. Next, I would round up all non-citizens and move them to labor camps, where their safety and educational needs would be met, though they would have to work 8 or more hours a day without pay in exchange for their basic needs being met. This would allow America to again have a productive and competitive manufacturing base, and all adult aliens who work for 5 years in the camps without trouble are given citizenship.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:31PM
You seem to be obsessed with the idea of kids voting, or else why do you bring it up in replies to posts which do not say anything about that topic?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:33PM
hi donald. I didn't know you were so internet savvy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:46PM
I think he got lost. The Turkey Farm's down the hall and to the left.
Must have wandered in here by accident....
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:09PM
I found your post flame-bait-y but I'd like to respond to your issue with kids voting:
I don't understand the problem here: the government knows the age and home address of everyone in town, and only the kids parents and (great-...) grandparents get sent a personal voting pass, if they're citizens registered as living in that town.
How can the kids vote?? If they show up with a faked voting pass they get thrown in jail (possibly their parents, instead).
(Obviously I have misunderstood something about this whole article.)
And about your labor camps: that sounds a bit like old-fashioned capitalist industry before social-democracy: like "Batadorp" [wikipedia.org] in the Netherlands.
The "town" gates are usually closed, and the employees/inmates have to do their shopping in the company shop at company prices. Complaints means you're fired.
It's all clean and neat and hygienic, but don't step over the line, slave! Remember the difference between lords and serfs.
That was 1924, ethanol-fueled, I don't think people would like to return to those times?
PS if the whole world *were* allowed to vote in the USA election, I think they wouldn't vote all for the Democrats. Maybe 50-50 between the Democrats and the Green Party :-)
If I plot the center point of the BRICS on this special Inglehart Values Map [wikipedia.org], the world votes like Bosnia.
Social Democrats, who'd have thunk?
I read it's called an "Overton window" [wikipedia.org]: what do you consider normal in your society's politics?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:33PM
Those who choose not to participate in the voting process should not count.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:12PM
Without a Constitutional Amendment, you would then end up with the strange situation where everyone is counted to determine how many representatives the state gets but are then divided up based on how many registered voters there are.
Also, just because you are registered, doesn't mean you vote. Registered voter turnout for the last election here was 15% and the last Congressional election was at 33%, IIRC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:03PM
There is no voter registration in North Dakota.
You show up, sign the roll beside your name (they already know who is in the state, who is over 18, and where everyone lives), and you cast your vote.
Very civilized.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:31AM
Don't worry, I'm sure a GOP-sponsered voter "fraud" bill will be coming soon to stop that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:46PM
To me, the answer is straightforward: We all pay taxes - be it income, sales, property, etc - therefore our elected officials represent all of us. Not just registered voters, not just landowners, not just the people who voted for them, not just the people who funded their campaigns, but everyone. I know that in practice that ideal is rarely achieved but we don't need to add yet another reason to sideline the disenfranchised.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:16PM
I disagree. Only registered voters should count, and if registered voters don't vote they should be dropped from the registry. Since 1900 the voter turnout has only been 50%-60% of those registered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections) If taxpayers really cared, they would register to vote AND participate in the voting process. Otherwise, you get more Obamas and Clintons running the country into chaos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:01PM
Only registered voters should count
The thing is only registered voters DO count. It is already this way. The other people by definition do not vote. I being a registered votes vote basically some fraction of my vote for them. If they like it or not. I am the one who gets more power. Because I registered and vote. My voice is small but at least I get to squeek something out.
Excluding children is only a problem for about 17 years for most people. At which point you can vote and have a say. In effect children in an area are *already* excluded. They are not the ones making the decisions. The school boards typically do that. Who do you think those people are elected by? Voters.
This comes down to one of two things someone is trying to do. Either gerrymander more districts (which is not necessarily a bad thing if you want proportional voting, but it is easily abused), or money, or both.
Also some people seem to think voting only happens every 4 years. That is not true. It usually happens at least once a year (twice if you count the political group ones). I have seen officials elected on less than 100 total votes to rule over 200k of people.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:09PM
I'm a registered voter. I'm even a '1' (in voter registration terms, that means I vote in every election, including run-off elections, judicial races, and the like. The shorthand is that I am among those who follow politics most closely, know the issues, etc). I still don't count. Why? Because what the politicians promise and what they do once elected have nothing to do with each other. It's the latter that is the only thing that counts, and that is 98% determined by the wealthy.
There are masses and mountains of data showing that's true, but much more importantly, we all know it in our gut. The 1% get everything they want, the 99% get nothing, even the most urgent of needs.
Even now, today, we have the idealists bleating that "If you don't vote, you're part of the problem," or, "Your basic problem is you voted for X party; Y party is the ANSWER." No, guys, the wealthy own both parties lock, stock, and barrel. There is no recourse for the 99% of the population through the electoral system. It is rigged. More and more people know that. Only the young and the clueless believe anymore that the system can be fixed from the inside. Hint: It can't.
This morning among the headlines was that the Middle Class in America is no longer the majority. Hard fact. We've all known it for 20 years, but now it's a fact even by the fudged and fiddled numbers the Masters of the Universe have used to cloak their theft.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:34PM
You have low political efficacy (look it up). The fact is that real power is more distributed in the USA than it ever has been in the last 120 years or more. People don't read newspapers anymore, they get their news from the Internet and TV - and the latter is rapidly declining in share as people cut their cable contracts.
How much money did it take to launch Soylentnews? This site can be viewed worldwide, with decent bandwidth. Granted, this is (mostly) a tech site, but there are thousands of other sites that are more political and economic in focus.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @04:46AM
I'm not sure your premise is valid.
Even the peak of any newspaper in recent years was only about 2 million. [theawl.com] That's the peak for the last 20 years.
"The O’Reilly Factor averaged 3.381 million viewers" [deadline.com] (per night)
I couldn't find reliable numbers for web news, but I bet most people simply switched out the NY Times for nytimes.com, Fox News for foxnews.com, etc. Soylent augments, but doesn't replace traditional media. Unless you count the green site as traditional media. (They're less than a year younger than Fox, after all)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:30PM
There is no such thing as the Middle Class.
It's an invention of Lamestream Media.
It's just 2 marks arbitrarily drawn on a graph.
No 2 people agree where the marks go.
The term is useless.
There are only 2 classes:
1) People who have to supply labor to earn a living
2) People who make money from money.
The 1st is called The Working Class; Marx called them The Proletariat.
The 2nd is called The Idle Rich or The Elite or The Ruling Class; Marx called them The Bourgeoisie.
...and the income of the Working Class flattened starting right after Nixon's trip to China in 1972.
(The wage graph actually shows the inflection point at 1968.)
We've been going negative for 4 decades.
If worker pay had kept up with worker productivity or inflation, the minimum wage would be over $22.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday December 11 2015, @08:08AM
And to which class do you count those who make money both through labour and through money?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @12:27AM
For those who missed it the 1st time:
People who have to supply labor to earn a living [are] called The Working Class.
If you can sit on your ass and just wait for the dividend checks to arrive then, for you, doing labor is clearly not a necessity, it is a pastime.
...and if the elective labor you do consists of figuring out more ways to screw over people who do have to work for a living, an additional descriptor for your bunch is The Oppressor Class.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:02PM
Taxes are not citizenship. I've paid minor amounts of taxes to several countries this year, but that doesn't make me a citizen of these countries, it doesn't give me an interest in their well-being, and it certainly didn't accord me any of the benefits or other responsibilities of citizenship. Citizenship is about more than paying taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:41PM
Yes, Taxes are not citizenship. But citizenship doesn't have to be a requirement. If you are in the US you are covered by US laws and taxes, and should therefore be represented.
Living in the US, paying taxes, being a citizen. If you can tick two of those you should be allowed to vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:15PM
Some of the Texas districts are pretty insane. When I live there, there was one district that basically followed the highway from San Antonio to Austin, and then carved out one Austin neighboorhood. Another was actually broken into separate non-continuous pieces. It's all designed to defend incumbents.
Really, there ought to be a simple rule requiring contiguous districts, and setting an upper limit on the ratio of circumferences to surface area. Of course, the incumbents would have to vote for any such changes, so it ain't gonna happen...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:23PM
Yeah, I think we need to put forth state amendments that the redistricting is done by math, not legislative vote:
1) All legislators are allowed to submit maps for each redistricting.
2) All submitted maps are considered for suitability: Must cover entire state with exactly one district, must have the right number of districts, least populous district % (eg. 95%) of most populous one, etc.
3) Final map is the one that is submitted, and suitable that minimizes the total perimeter. Additionally, perimeters can be counted as a lesser percent if they are existing boarders (county lines, previous district boarder, etc.)
No vote, just a committee applying math to the maps, (with judicial oversight if needed) so the map chosen could have been the one proposed by the lone representative of a 3rd party, if they can get the right map. Yes, all parties will still try to get the 'best' map for their party, but they will have to compete with, rather than push out, the minority parties.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @04:49AM
And how do you think the committee will be chosen? Or the judges that oversee the committee?
Gerrymandering is not a new concept. We just haven't been able (or willing) to do what it takes to get rid of it.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:47PM
Well, there is an easy way to simplify things. Just kill all the Mexicans. Problem Solved.
(Score: 4, Funny) by jdavidb on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:04PM
Do Soylentils see the allocation of election districts as a process to distribute legislative seats equally over the number of voters, or equally over the number of people (regardless of whether those people can vote or not)?
I see every election as a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tizan on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:28PM
That is the question....
If there is more work to be done because the population is bigger then there should be more representatives for a given region with more population.
If there is more work because of only those who are allowed to vote represent the amount of work necessary..then it should be that.
If it is the latter is the conclusion ...then a district with old voters will have more representatives than one with more kids for example. So school issues will have less weight than geryatric issues....I logically cannot see how that could be: (more kids, immigrants, legal-illegal is not the matter need more infrastructure, policing etc etc
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:28PM
I know that the first primaries in the American presidential race are approaching, and that some Soylentils, left, right, center, and other are focused on the outcome, but there have been quite a lot of US-centric political stories entering the story stream. I personally have a long, close history of engagement with politics in America on all levels, so part of me welcomes the opportunity to discuss and debate with highly tuned minds who are outside any echo chamber. But we ought to take care to avoid being drawn into the pointless bickering, the kabuki, that mass media is selling.
Slashdot, and Soylent, have always used the "things that matter" part of the clause to cover stories that don't fall under the tech & science rubrics, but let's be careful to make sure that inch is isn't taken to a mile. What I have seen on Slashdot and here on Soylent is that the very best of us comes out when talking about STEM. Users whose posts on politics seem limited to reflexive talking points shine when talking about, say, chip design.
I would personally be very grateful to have an island of calm, a respite, talking about tech while Western Civilization self-destructs (or reinvents itself).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:27PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:00PM
well, aliens can't vote.
also it is strange that ONE person is involved in voting TWICE.
once, the actual person votes, the second time the same person is
"overruled" by some other person representing the collective (to which the person counts)
and which votes on behalf of that ONE person.
all very strange?
anyways, i think if you are eligible to pay taxes then you
should also be eligible to vote.
if you want to allow another separate entity / overruling to vote on your behalf a second time...
(I assume a alien cannot pay taxes if even if s/he would like to).
the only fact that would kinda allow aliens to be counted by the
"overruling entity" as a vote is the fact that the alien has to obey the
law just like a regular voting person.
so like: if you have to obey the law then you should have a say in what kind of laws you want?
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:45PM
There could be different overlapping collectives, and that you don't count for some of them.
For example, the last election, I could vote for two of the three ballots:
- I was allowed to vote for the local community election, because I'm registered as an 18+ inhabitant of my community ("domicile", I suppose).
- I was DISallowed to vote for the national election (I could see in the voting book that that was pre-crossed-out in printing next to my name), because I don't have the nationality.
- I was allowed to vote for the Europarliament election, because I'm still Eurotrash.
So maybe those Mexicans whom Trump fulminates against would be eligible to vote for the NAFTA elections, if there is such a thing ;-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SecurityGuy on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:40PM
This entire nonsense of having millions of illegal aliens and doing nothing about it creates no end of problems.
Deport them and they won't be counted by the census anymore. If we're NOT going to deport them, we may as well stop having them be legal in everything but name. Then they can (eventually) become citizens, register and vote, just like everybody else.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @10:19PM
Deport them
Arrest the people who hire them--y'know, the businessmen who are breaking the law.
No (criminal) employers == no immigrant problem.
Note that Reagan stopped enforcing that law in 1981.
No president since then has started enforcing it again.
Not gonna happen.
...and, without undocumented workers, there would be an awful lot of dirty, unsupervised children; messy homes; unkempt lawns; unharvested crops; construction left undone; etc.
These are among the hardest-working people in the USA and clueless bozos want to spend $millions to round them up and transport them elsewhere.
...and the ancestors of many white USAians arrived on this continent without papers.
Perhaps those "anchor babies" should be "sent back".
[or] they can (eventually) become citizens
Here in Orange County, there is a significant Latino population.
They are hard-working, family-oriented, and fun-loving.
The area would be a more boring place without them.
More places should have more folks like that.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @03:44AM
You need to check your facts. Farmers actually get busted, pay huge fines, and end up going to jail.
Even if they didn't know that Miguel's paperwork was fake, because they supposedly somehow should have known.
Justice! Striking a blow against the wicked exploitative landowner!
In the next step of the revolution, maybe we can expropriate the land from the capitalist oppressor class and give it to the virtuous proletariat, eh comrade?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @03:58AM
Link?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:59PM
http://www.google.com/ [google.com]
Really, dude, do you want me to hold your hand, too?
OK, fine, let me help; search for "farmer immigrant worker arrested"
There were at least three that matched what I was talking about on the first page.
Have fun! If you're a good student, Teacher might have a cookie for you!