Obviously you weren't involved in any gang wars inside. I was. Guards decided it would be smart to put white and Lebanese inmates in the same yard just after the Cronulla Riots. It ended well....
The Tipping Point
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Conflicts were short, time was long. I'd say overall I was involved in more violence, as a percentage of time, in a lot of years on the outside than I was in any year on the inside. It was more intense, but that usually contributed to it being over quickly.
That is a good point. If nothing else, fights in prison tend to end very, very quickly.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
A job posting doesn't prove they are actually hiring for the positions, nor does it indicate whether or not the level of hiring matches the level of demand. One of the favorite tactics of Trump Inc is to post job listings and then purposefully not fill them to justify importing immigrant labor. I don't think they could do that for census jobs but point being that a listing doesn't prove they are adequately staffing to run the census.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2020-census_us_5a2025bbe4b0392a4ebbe6a0
It gets complicated very quickly. There's no doubt that the cost of living can vary dramatically. But then we have to tweezer apart what each party considers 'essential', and their relative luxuries. Kids A can play in 'free' backforest, but Kids B need to go to a summer camp to get the same luxury. Parents A need to buy $40 clothing to be 'work appropriate', Parents B require $200 clothing. Parents A pay $2 / lb of fruit Parents B pay $3 / lb. The whole thing becomes a mess.
It's the value of the saved dollar that really matters though. If one family can save $100 per month and the other can save $10, 'cost of living' doesn't matter because one group's savings are more than the other. If one family can cut expenses by removing collision insurance and the other ... honestly doesn't need to (cuz their vehicle is so crummy anyway), then the one family is actually wealthier.
I run into this all the time when helping friends with their budgets. They'll have luxuries that I'd never consider buying, but also have a greater psychological need for that luxury. I just cannot ever really tell if person A actually needs to spend what they spend on clothing or if person B actually needs some type of television entertainment. But, a saved dollar (in the savings account) is a saved dollar.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I can just cut right to the chase on the comment from @Commodore. No cost of living advantage can make it worth living in Ohio.
I wouldn't attribute too much explanatory power about the lower wages in the US competed to Australia to the cost of living difference between the US and Australia. This comparator has a limited range of cities but suggests my city is maybe a bit cheaper than Houston. And of course that's before deducting health insurance costs in Houston.
It's actually pretty nice here.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Kemp tried to prevent 3,000 naturalized citizens from being able to vote in Georgia because <reasons> but a court stopped him. I guess this gets back to my fear which I've expressed elsewhere - that right now we're putting a lot of faith in our court system just *working*. I have no idea how the system will work when (not if) Republicans decide to begin ignoring court rulings or otherwise subverting them.
Yeah, there is actually an article on this I read today. Apparently there are currently cases about Republican gerrymandering before SCOTUS, which essentially means the anti-gerrymandering rulings will be overturned by the newly-packed SCROTUS.
Source.
We used to have gerrymanders in Australia, and Mike Baird tried t bring it back on a local level in NSW a few years ago, but we seem to have avoided the ncredibly corrupt system you have over there.Virtually every politically relevant indicator points to the Democrats winning a majority of seats in the US House of Representatives at next week's midterm elections.
Public opinion polls have long suggested an 8-to-9-point lead for a generic Democratic House candidate over a Republican candidate. President Trump's approval ratings, in the low 40s, are historically associated with about a 40-seat loss for Republicans, more than enough for Democrats to win a majority.
Far more Democrats participated in primary elections than did Republicans, a signal of Democratic enthusiasm exceeding that of Republicans. More Republican incumbents retiredahead of the 2018 elections than did Democrats, indicative of a good electoral environment for Democrats.
But partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing electoral boundaries that favour one party over another — could be an ace up the Republican sleeve in next Tuesday's elections.
Stacking the deck
Elections for Australia's federal parliament are administered by the Australian Electoral Commission, a non-partisan, professional agency, charged with maintaining the electoral roll, the conduct of elections and conducting electoral redistributions, dividing states and territories into seats for Australia's House of Representatives.
In recent decades, the determination of electoral boundaries appears to be free of partisan interference and manipulation.
The situation is different in the US, where state and local governments have responsibility for the administration of elections, including electoral redistricting. The US Constitution provides that every 10 years a census shall be conducted to determine the apportionment of the House of Representatives seats (Congressional districts) across the 50 states, in proportion to the population of those states.
The US Supreme Court insists on strict adherence to equal population in each district, ruling out an older form of electoral manipulation known as malapportionment.
In at least 26 US states, redistricting is a political affair, an act of the state legislature, requiring majority approval from the houses of the state legislature and the governor's assent. In 2011-12 — the last redistricting — Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 of these 26 states and Democrats in five states, with divided government prevailing in two of the 26 states. Courts or commissions controlled redistricting in 14 states.
Partisan gerrymandering arises when the party creating districts "packs" their opponents' voters into a relatively small number of districts and "cracks" their opponents' remaining voters such that they form minorities in the remaining districts.
Indeed, more extreme partisan gerrymanders can see the favoured party winning a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes.
Print Email Facebook Twitter More
OPINION
Midterm election result far from certain as gerrymandering could lead to a Republican win
By Simon Jackman
Updated about 2 hours ago
PHOTO: Donald Trump's approval ratings are in the low 40s, but don't count out Republicans holding on to seats. (Reuters)
RELATED STORY: Donald Trump might steal the headlines — but voters say he's not the only thing on their minds
RELATED STORY: After two years of Trump, here's how a former Democrat is feeling ahead of the midterms
RELATED STORY: Let's check Trump's report card in the eyes of his supporters
Virtually every politically relevant indicator points to the Democrats winning a majority of seats in the US House of Representatives at next week's midterm elections.
Public opinion polls have long suggested an 8-to-9-point lead for a generic Democratic House candidate over a Republican candidate. President Trump's approval ratings, in the low 40s, are historically associated with about a 40-seat loss for Republicans, more than enough for Democrats to win a majority.
Keep across the midterms with ABC News on Messenger
We'll be breaking news alerts and more to our US politics subscribers on Facebook Messenger. Why not join them?
Far more Democrats participated in primary elections than did Republicans, a signal of Democratic enthusiasm exceeding that of Republicans. More Republican incumbents retiredahead of the 2018 elections than did Democrats, indicative of a good electoral environment for Democrats.
But partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing electoral boundaries that favour one party over another — could be an ace up the Republican sleeve in next Tuesday's elections.
Stacking the deck
Elections for Australia's federal parliament are administered by the Australian Electoral Commission, a non-partisan, professional agency, charged with maintaining the electoral roll, the conduct of elections and conducting electoral redistributions, dividing states and territories into seats for Australia's House of Representatives.
In recent decades, the determination of electoral boundaries appears to be free of partisan interference and manipulation.
The situation is different in the US, where state and local governments have responsibility for the administration of elections, including electoral redistricting. The US Constitution provides that every 10 years a census shall be conducted to determine the apportionment of the House of Representatives seats (Congressional districts) across the 50 states, in proportion to the population of those states.
Betting the farm on Trump
In 2016, these farmers helped elect Donald Trump. Are they happy with America in 2018?
The US Supreme Court insists on strict adherence to equal population in each district, ruling out an older form of electoral manipulation known as malapportionment.
In at least 26 US states, redistricting is a political affair, an act of the state legislature, requiring majority approval from the houses of the state legislature and the governor's assent. In 2011-12 — the last redistricting — Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 of these 26 states and Democrats in five states, with divided government prevailing in two of the 26 states. Courts or commissions controlled redistricting in 14 states.
Partisan gerrymandering arises when the party creating districts "packs" their opponents' voters into a relatively small number of districts and "cracks" their opponents' remaining voters such that they form minorities in the remaining districts.
Indeed, more extreme partisan gerrymanders can see the favoured party winning a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes.
PHOTO: Protesters wear cut-outs of congressional districts at a protest at the Supreme Court in March over alleged gerrymandering in Maryland. (Reuters: Joshua Roberts)
Legal challenges to gerrymandering
In 2017 I testified for plaintiffs claiming that North Carolina's congressional districts constituted an unconstitutional, pro-Republican gerrymander. The three-judge Federal Court hearing the case agreed. The case is currently on appeal with the US Supreme Court.
The evidence I produced revealed several characteristics of partisan gerrymandering. First, although Democrats won 46.7 per cent of the House vote state-wide in 2016, they won only three out of 13 seats; conversely, Republicans won 10 out of 13 seats with 53.3 per cent of the vote, an unusually disproportionate result.
Second, it is evident that the Democratic vote has been "packed" into those three districts where Democratic candidates win by margins of no less than 67-33. The remaining Democratic votes in North Carolina are dispersed throughout the 10 seats won by Republicans, with the most marginal Republican win was 56-44.
Third, the apparent "packing" and "cracking" of Democratic partisans is no mere peculiarity of the candidates and issues in North Carolina's congressional races in 2016, but is also closely mirrored in votes for Clinton and Trump in the presidential election.
North Carolina's districts were clearly designed with the partisanship of the voters in mind, as the Republicans who drafted this set of boundaries brazenly conceded.
North Carolina Democrats require a 6.1 percentage-point swing from 2016 results to pick up a fourth seat, which would take their state-wide vote share to 52.8 per cent. To win seven (a majority) of North Carolina's 13 CDs, the swing needed is 8.4 per cent, at which point Democrats would have 55.1 per cent of the state-wide vote. Conversely, Republicans can retain seven out of North Carolina's 13 seats with as little as 44.9 per cent of the vote.
It's not just North Carolina
Similar patterns hold in other seats with aggressive pro-Republican gerrymanders.
Republicans can retain a majority of Florida's 27 Congressional districts with far less than a majority of the state-wide congressional vote, just 44.6 per cent.
In Michigan, Democrats require a 6.9 per cent swing to pick up an additional seat; Republicans can retain a majority of Michigan's 14 Congressional districts with as a little as 43.7 per cent of the state-wide vote.
In Ohio (16 Congressional districts), Democrats need a 9.2 per cent swing for a fifth seat; Republicans can retain eight of Ohio's Congressional districts with as little as 42 per cent of the state-wide vote.
Maryland is perhaps the clearest case of a pro-Democratic gerrymander at present. Republicans hold just one of Maryland's eight Congressional districts, winning it 70-30, consistent with Republican voters being packed. But with 52.2 per cent of the state-wide vote Republicans could win four seats there, a mild level of partisan bias relative to the large pro-Republican biases in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and North Carolina.
The midterms
With polls suggesting Democrats will outpoll Republicans by about 8 percentage points, one might reasonably conclude that Democrats will win a comfortable majority in the House.
They may. But gerrymandering systematically reduces the number of marginal Republican districts, meaning that Democrats must reach quite high "up the tree" to win the 23 or so seats they need to form a majority.
By design, partisan gerrymandering suppresses the responsiveness of elections, stifling the translation of more votes for one party into additional legislative seats for that party.
Nationally, Democrats could require more than 55 per cent of the two-party vote for Congress to win 50 per cent of the seats in the Congress.
Under a fair system, each party should have roughly the same chance of forming a majority if they win roughly half of the votes.
That is manifestly not the case in contemporary American elections. The systematic, deliberate manipulation of district lines — to suppress the responsiveness of legislatures, law and policy to public opinion — is a corruption of American democracy, and alas, could well play a key role in next Tuesday's elections.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Glad to hear you fixed that issue over there.
I just read an article that acknowledged voter suppression but went to some length to excuse it by claiming 'the vast majority of Georgians will still vote' or by saying that voter suppression only affects the vote at the margins. That's the thing that can't be understated - autocrats world-wide should be looking to the Republican strategy.
When Saddam and Putin get 110% of the vote in districts, everyone immediately points out the blatant fraud. If instead they only rigged the election to get slim majorities (but still victories) they would have a lot more legitimacy. The problem here (which your article shows) is that Republicans don't have to commit massive amounts of fraud to gain complete, near-unassailable power. They just have to tip the scales enough to give their opponents a persistent handicap such that even when the Democrats get more votes they still lose.
It hasn't helped that our electoral college essentially does this at the Presidential level by default as that's one less system the Republicans have to actively hijack to win.
I really am afraid of what happens after the courts decide to not protect against gerrymandering, and the gerrymandering 'game' is won.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
To a large extent they already have. The courts by and large concede that they think gerrymandering is legal so far as the motivation is not explicitly racist. Implicitly racism is OK and in fact Republicans have won court cases arguing that explicit racism in gerrymandering is also OK so long as they argue that minorities vote for Democrats therefore the motivation to effectively disenfranchise them is political in nature. The courts have mostly ruled that gerrymandering is just fine so long as it is 'political' in nature and have turned a blind eye to both the inherent unfairness of the system and the mounds and mounds of racism that this strategy draws on and reinforces.
We did not get into this situation overnight, there has been a consistent, concerted effort for going on 2 decades to get here and the courts have let it happen.
It's great when the courts do strike down these laws but that's been the exception to the rule.
We did not get into this situation overnight, there has been a consistent, concerted effort for going on 2 decades to get here and the courts have let it happen.
It's great when the courts do strike down these laws but that's been the exception to the rule.
Well... if it is "only affecting in the margins".... why not define what that "margin" may be, and use a limit.
Assuming that proportional vote is out of the question in the US system,
you can nevertheless use the popular vote as limit for the degree of gerrymandering within a state.
The constitutional limit could be chosen for example at 53%.
If any gerrymandering proposal would give for the last elections held a majority that has less than 47% of the popular vote, that gerrymandering proposal is forbidden.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I don't think that would work because it would encourage Republicans to go after as much legal electoral handicapping as they can get away with. Once you write a rule like that you are asking for them to go after that 3% advantage full-bore and of course they will cross the line as much as they can get away with. Moreover, any system that builds in a structural advantage for one side will tend to end up creating a complete monopoly of the system by that side. You win enough elections with 47.1% of the vote and pretty soon you are the only party in power and begin rewriting all the rules to your favor - which is exactly what's been going on in this country.
This. For a very long time, Australian states, specifically Queensland and South Australia, had gerrymanders; the "Bjelkemander" and "Playmander" specifically. These were more based on malapportionment than boundary manipulation. It enabled the incredibly corrupt, practically third-world regime of Joh Bjelke-Petersen - who Prime Minister Hawke openly derided as "demented" - to maintain power in QLD for over a decade, in spite of receiving far less than 50% of the vote. Police under his command also had a rather nasty habit of viciously beating, and even murdering, political activists.
Fortunately, JBP was forced, after a television expose, to allow an investigation into police corruption in QLD; the Fitzgerald Inquiry. This report was damning, revealing massive, widespread corruption, and JBP was forced out, conveniently getting ill and avoiding criminal charges (he lived two more decades; hell of an illness). The Labor Party swept to power in spite of the gerrymandering, and promptly did away with it.
South Australia was nowhere near that bad, and it was the Liberals themselves, embarrassed and ashamed of their need to cheat to win power, that did away with it; eventually. But they still retained power for decades using an unfair system, and could have maintained power far longer if they hadn't magically grown consciences.
If you give a party a structural advantage, particularly one that is already gaming the system, they will take that advantage, and prolong it as best they can. You'll end up with decades of Republican rule.
And that Peter Dutton I mentioned earlier; a police officer under JBP, who resigned from the force to go work for his father just in time to avoid being investigated by the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Funny how that worked.
EDIT: just realised I mentionedDutton in a different thread. Oh well, he's a corrupt, racist, homophobic and generally scummy Potato pretending to be a politician.
Last edited:
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Yup. It's not as if the Republicans can be trusted to play by the rules as-is. Giving them even more legal cover to manipulate the vote would be a disaster.
And the gerrymandering issue is separate from voter suppression which another tool in their toolbox for cheating elections. If you give them a legal mandate for a 3% political handicap it just makes it that much easier for them to win. It's hard to overcome that handicap when the other side is not only working to ensure your votes are diluted but also going out of their way to actively remove your voters from the rolls entirely.
And the gerrymandering issue is separate from voter suppression which another tool in their toolbox for cheating elections. If you give them a legal mandate for a 3% political handicap it just makes it that much easier for them to win. It's hard to overcome that handicap when the other side is not only working to ensure your votes are diluted but also going out of their way to actively remove your voters from the rolls entirely.
Indeed. As that article I posted mentioned, Wisconsin voted for Trump by around 25,000 people. 65,000 were struck from the rolls, and most of that number was comprised of demographics that are statistically likely to have voted Democrat.
