Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What they really need (Score -1, Troll) 326

Obama made his bed. He was a bad president and he tried to bypass congress to get what he wanted done. I don't care if I agree with what he wanted the way he did it was bad. It was a matter of time to reverse what he did with a pen stroke.

I don't care if Congress doesn't want to work with a president. That is their prerogative and right. I do care if a president tries to go around a congress to force his agenda.

Comment Re:I'm talking percentages (Score 1) 326

This doesn't makes sense. By design change at the federal level is slow and requires broad support in the country. Obviously, polls will be disconnected from federal initiative. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark to public opinion and passion! The article and you are complaining that the federal government isn't as whimsical as popular opinion. Duh. That article is saying, "536 people were given more power and it costs a lot of time and money to influence their opinion that is beyond the reach of the average citizen." ... No kidding. You know what wasn't supposed to matter to the daily lives of the average citizen? The federal government.

The local government was supposed to have a more direct impact on the daily life of the people and is supposed to be more responsive to the people. Do the study with state and local government then tell me the same conclusion. Democracy is not the end all be all of civics and governance. There are reasons for undemocratic measures in government.

Also, considering the BBC. The UK government will arrest people for making jokes. I'd hardly want their opinion on "undemocratic governance" because they're government is more whimsical to public passion that gets rallied into a witch hunt against their own citizens. #governmentpunchanazi amirite.

Comment Re:And yet... (Score 2, Interesting) 393

I get the impression that you're siding with Google management rather than with Cory Altheide on this one.

Neither, that is in FTA. I am not sure how to take the supposition: "Employee's Memo Says Executives Shut Down Pro-Diversity Discussions" when said Employee agrees that part of the discussion that resulted should not be tolerated. It seems that Google and Altheide agree with the course of action: "should not be tolerated". It seems the only difference is that he seems to want a scalpel, banning individuals, while google used a grenade, stopping the discussion.

I am still looking at the situation to make an opinion.

If you read my comment history I am not a fan of censorship in any regard and recognize that there is a point in which we force private companies to protect the rights of individuals. I err on the side of caution because if the culture rejects free speech in their capacity then the law will soon follow.

Comment Re:You can thank the corporate Dems for this too (Score 1) 409

was something the founders didn't forsee,

I disagree because they gave the states control of the election and it was argued in the Federalist Papers. They understood well the ramifications of a "wrong" system.

"Every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation. ... a departure from so fundamental a principle, as a portion of imperfection in the system which may prove the seed of future weakness, and perhaps anarchy. It will not be alleged, that an election law could have been framed and inserted in the Constitution, which would have been always applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country; and it will therefore not be denied, that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded, that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter and ultimately in the former. ". - Alexander Hamilton

I think you underestimate the extent to which the Founders understood government and politics even if they didn't have the word 'gerrymandering'. You don't create a democratic system without understanding the potential risks of what happens in an election.

it's a threat to democracy

I disagree. We have a unique history of expanding the rights of the individual. We have trended toward more open and freer government even if there are instances of bad governance. There are ways around gerrymandering through gubernatorial elections to veto district maps (which apparently was the GOP strategy in 90's election to break the ~40 year hold of democrat power in legislatures and their gerrymandered districts, is what started CA to a non-partisan committee). You are closer to your local and state government which you are more apt to change. You have a tough job to justify such threats when the trend has been considerably favorable.

Comment Re:Weaponized gerrymandering (Score 1) 409

relatively recently that the parties have tried to basically weaponize it to an extreme degree

I disagree. Elections and redistricting have always been a messy. I might agree with a boom/bust type cycle for gerrymandering but "weaponizing" is not new. This is the same idea that the challenges we face today are some how novel and different from historical norms when in reality it's always been a challenge. Another example of this is communications and journalism. Human nature doesn't change because we can communicate faster and farther with yellow journalism just as elections are always contested and flawed in some way.

Gerrymandering to my mind is one of the greatest threats to our democracy

Again, I disagree. A nuisance and problem but not a threat or even one of the greatest threats to our democracy. Regardless that democracy was never the goal and was to be tempered by undemocratic means and in spite of gerrymandering we still have a functioning republic that has the unique history of expanding the rights of the individual. Because of the decentralized method in which we run our elections, this is an issue that must be handled by the people directly affected by this on a case by case basis. People in the west are not directly impacted by NC gerrymandering aside from the court opinion establishing a precedent to interpret the law.

A few examples of bigger threats IMO are the national debt and thinking that democracy is the end all be all of proper governance thereby making everything democratic (17th amendment did more harm then good).

Comment Re:Wow, really? (Score 1, Informative) 409

Gerrymandering has been an issue since the start of the Republic. Even California has issues with it's redistricting. Great, they have an unelected commission to decide their districts. Which has been highly unfavorable to the GOP party even though it was initially promoted by the GOP in California. They risked their political power because they thought it a good idea. My initial point.

I am not convinced the democrats have solved the issue particularly so because you now can have a democrat run against a democrat. A real choice in the election!

Comment Re:Republicans fear democracy, or want to destroy (Score 1) 409

I think the US has a great political system when compared to other Democracies but in this area, we are far behind. In many other systems, the gridlock we see would result in government disbandment and re-elections! That rarely happens because those parties figure out how to compromise and work things out.

The US is a lot more diverse than those you are comparing to. As those other countries become more diverse with ideas and people the more cracks we see. Elections are messy affairs. If there are problems, I don't think the answer should default to 're-election' as it seems so common in Europe. There is nothing stopping a state from adopting some solution for their elections (for the most part). Lead by example and risk your political power.

Comment Re:Wow, really? (Score 1) 409

In all seriousness, I do hope that something like this will be implemented in its stead: []

Whenever voting comes up the inevitable solution to 'fix' the elections follow. It maybe a great idea and the best idea ever to come up in civics and elections. You would go much further in convincing me that it's a great idea by implementing in your state. Elections are controlled by state and local governments and leading by example is a better way to prove your idea is good. I don't care what other countries do, they have no political stake in our elections and organize their elections according to their own needs. I want you to risk your political power to prove your idea works by actually practicing what you preach.

Slashdot Top Deals