TakeYouToTasker

You guys didn't know about Adams and the snake?

It's not in any way analogous. He's simply trying to bury the fact that someone he supports to take part in the management of a 4 trillion dollar budget and direct US economic policy couldn't manage to plan to pay for her own apartment or manager her own personal finances.

Thank you for sharing.

You keep your weed in a gun safe?

Apparently not as soon as his ex.

Well, they are the meth lab of democracy after all.

On a closed system? How? And what percentage of the population do you think has the education and knowledge base to do so? I understand you sort of touch on this later, but I'll address it here because it's incredibly central to the issue. The answer is: a diminishingly small amount. Currently anyone can go to their town hall, or can write a letter their Congressman. I've interacted directly with my Congressman three times this year, and my Governor once. I have the ability to go to my state representative at nearly any time to be heard on nearly any issue, and they have the ear of all of my federal representation. I can go to the state house, and can raise argument if my representative chooses to give me the floor. I can question members of my government during open sessions, and during public events which are held often. Anyone can do these things. Anyone. It does not require a special knowledge base, or technical training. It does not require an education. It simply requires the willingness and desire to speak to my legislators, through the many avenues available, about my concerns. The realities of what you propose is that while, sure, "anyone" could (I place that in parenthesis because I don't believe that to be true within the confines of a corrupt system), that almost no one has the requisite knowledge to do so in a meaningful way. This reality creates the lack of transparency. First of all, the "vague generality about corruption" is the same one you've predicated your entire argument on, so I wouldn't be so hastily dismissive. Secondly, any interest has currently has theoretical equal access to our legislators in Congress. Yet the RNC, DNC, and special interest lobby groups enjoy access you and I don't, and write the laws we live under. This is because capital barriers prevent market entry. Access goes to the highest bidder in any commoditized system, and the system you've designed has literally been built for the purpose of being commoditized because it is not designed to serve the interests of individuals but rather to consolidate power and serve the interests of the two major political parties (who I remind you are private corporations). I understand that this is not your desire, but it is an unintended consequence of what you are proposing, which you are attempting to minimize in your rush to justify your idea. No, you haven't done that at all. You've made that fiat declaration several times, but you haven't explained how in any detail. Rather, you've dismissed concerns and counter arguments, completely ignoring any unintended consequences. Far less, as I've amply demonstrated. What percentage of the population do you think could read and understand code? Of that group what percentage do you believe to be so mathematically literate they could break down a complicated algorithm within in order to address theoretical concerns? Absolutely untrue as I've already laid out. You have not. At this point you've simply repeated yourself three times within your post. That's a sales technique, not an argument.

Ya know, I think God is just trying to tell us to go ahead and burn the whole state down and start over.

You're the one looking for a change in the system. It's not for me to tell you why you shouldn't make the change and address your concerns (which I have to a large degree). It is for you to expel my fears about importing new layers of corruption into the system, and taking it further away from the people it is supposed to represent. Also important to note: You've admitted to inventing a system designed to serve party interests, and have constructed your model in a way that two private corporations (the Democratic and Republican Parties) are tasked with policing the system by hiring tech experts in order to protect their own interests. That's about as far away from democratic principals as I can imagine, as it completely marginalizes the ability of the individual concerned citizen to exert influence, directly institutionalizes the centralization of power, and completely casts third parties out of the discussion by creating massive financial barriers into entry (turning our political process into a market even more than it already is). As to who polices it? An interested and informed citizenry. If citizens can't be bothered to be interested and informed, then the problem is beyond solving anyhow.

The solution is to craft laws explicitly and narrowly defining corruption, and assigning harsh criminal penalties, up to and including the noose, for engaging it in. What you're suggesting simply places control over Representation further away from the "represented", which is always a bad thing. The solution is paper ballots and purple fingers; and nooses and firing squads.

There's a lot of fiat declaration in here. Again, you haven't in any way addressed the complete lack of transparency this imports into an already corrupt system. As to your derivative data pools: they're all incredibly flawed for various reasons, a few of which I'll tick off: the census itself is Constitutionally dubious in many ways, voter registration is inconsistent and easily manipulated, distance between voter and district center is irrelevant, etc. Further, there is no such thing as an independent commission, and in the absence of first cleaning up corruption, algorithms simply become another tool of the corrupt, further insulating themselves from the electorate, most of whom have no idea how to read code, and wouldn't have access to the code even if they could. This is a non-solution which causes more problems than it solves.

The proper solution for the state of New York, and other states, would be to sell/lease it's commercial shipping lanes to Amazon for the cost of performing maintenance and repairs on the highways running adjacent to them. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

He's far too stupid and dishonest to do that. Anyone who would double down on his argument after being confronted with incontrovertible facts running counter to it isn't interested in being objective or reasonable, both of which would be required to ask mea culpa.

To be clear, you're making an argument that because we do something a certain way now, it's illogical to do it a different way. That's not a strong argument. You argument that we should use technology because we have a corruption problem is a non-sequitur. Technology is not impervious to corruption, and can actually exacerbate it because few in the electorate have a fluent understanding of code. And even if 100% of the electorate did, would you want them to have access to that code? And if they don't how could they verify it? The technology you're discussing removes transparency from the electoral process, and that's a bad thing. It makes it less accountable, more subject to corruption. And to be clear, I'm not a troglodyte. I have a computing background, and work in an industry that is incredibly tech forward/centric. What this means is that I have a very clear understanding of the problems technology can create, and am aware that while it can improve aspects of processes, change does not come without consequence, and minimizing the truth about negative impacts is the trademark of salesmen, not problem solvers.

There is no more important aspect of government than the franchise. The franchise is the underlying foundation of human freedom, as it is the right to self determination which allows us to construct a government which serves to protect our rights. Without that, we have nothing, and I will not entertain any argument which takes the franchise out of the hands of individuals who can be held accountable. I also have a problem with corruption, so let's focus on the problem, and ferret out corruption. In a representative government people get the government they deserve. I will not work around the edges of the real problems, giving consent to non-solutions which introduce new problems. Corruption is a problem we can agree exists. Let's address it directly.

I'm not interested in relinquishing any part of my sovereignty to technology or AI. That in and of itself is massively problematic, as algorithms are not accountable to the electorate. Every aspect of our electoral process needs to be managed by people, flawed as they may be. If you want to ban, or even criminalize, political parties in government I'm with you.

An understanding of US civics should be mandatory in order to achieve the franchise. Why on Earth would "flyover country" agree to remain in the United States if they were to be dictated to by urban centers on the coasts?

Faster, please.

Would ya?

Again, the system we have isn't perfect, but what you propose is a non-solution which causes more problems than it solves.

No, I don't, because Congressional districts are designed to function much in the same way the Electoral College does; and the 47% of voters are not in concentrated areas, but rather the large majority of them are located in urban centers, with smaller amounts dispersed throughout areas which are overwhelmingly populated by people of a different political persuasion. No system will be perfect, but a system which systematically works to marginalize 50% of it's population is far worse than what we have. There is no magic bullet, but your solution causes more problems for representative governance than it solves.

Why should districts be drawn to have equal partisan representation? That's not the purpose of the House of Representatives. That's insisting that the House represent mathematical formulas rather than individuals. To refute my argument you'll need to successfully make two cases: 1) That the House was designed to be ideologically split on a 1:1 basis, or close to it. 2) That representative government is better served when a smaller number of franchised individuals have a voice in government. I'm open to hearing your argument, but you haven't made it yet.

The best way to achieve active representation in Congress for the largest amount of Americans is to create districts which are as politically homogeneous as possible. This ensures that citizens in a given area have a greater chance of having a Congress person who accurately represents their views and philosophies in the House of Representatives. Districts designed to be competitive marginalize a higher percentage of the electorate by design as roughly 50% of the voters in a given area have no one in Congress representing their political views. The House of Representatives was designed to give people a voice in their government. Your suggestion gives them less of a voice, and insists that rather than individuals be represented within the body, that the body should be constructed in a way that suits a mathematical formula. That's a bad thing.

What an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.

The penalty for organized election fraud needs to be the noose, and I'm being completely serious. It's the only way this stuff will come to an end.