Computer-generated maps imagine America redivided into equal-population areas

boing
61

Ha. I own the road in front of my house (the deed is very, very old) out to the centerline. There’s a historic, undocumented public easement for through travel.

I once had a long talk with the state highway department. I asked a crusty old engineer what I needed to do in order to have maintenance performed, and he described a complex procedure that might take a couple of months and could result in me being billed since it’s technically my land, and recommended I call a local politician instead since they get action immediately without forms or committees being involved. At some point I said, “What would happen if I set up a toll gate?” and he laughed and said, “Your land would be seized by imminent domain before sunset. You’re not the first guy to think of that!”

2 Likes
62

It’s very much not “evenly split”, though.

Measured on the issues, the centre of American political opinion is slightly to the left of the Democrats. The fascists are a minority, as are the supporters of the corporate wing of the Dems.

Congress is nowhere near representative of the nation.

4 Likes
63

(cited in:)

(cited in:)

3 Likes
64

of course it is: that 49.9% is white landowning males, who as we all know can do no wrong.

65

Okay, now we’re working with a number, let’s see where it takes us.

I followed your link back to

which told me that

“As it was initially proposed in 2009, the estimated cost of Affordable Care Act—which is significantly flawed, but still has increased coverage for those who need it most—for each taxpayer is just $3.61 a week. For reference, a grande caffe latte at Starbucks costs $3.65 before tax. As for how we got that? Kingsepp ran the numbers for us. It’s the net cost over 10 years divided by U.S. population then divided by by 52 weeks per year—although she notes that it’s a bit complicated tax-wise due to tax structure.”

I did a search on Alexandra (Alex) Kingsepp but could find nothing on how she came up with these numbers. Moving right along…

“It’s a bit complicated tax-wise” is a disingenuous way of ignoring the fact that there are only about 135-140 million taxpayers in the USA.

So let’s see what the real cost paid by actual taxpayers would be. $67.7 billion divided by 138 million = $490 per year more or less. That still seems reasonable, but what’s it buying? It’s buying

“the estimated cost of Affordable Care Act—which is significantly flawed, but still has increased coverage for those who need it most—for each taxpayer”

I have to think that what is being talked about here is the net cost of Obamacare to the taxpayer, after all the premiums are paid. Maybe that’s still a good deal,* but it’s not the total cost of healthcare for the USA by any means. You’d have to add everything that’s spent by Medicare, by Medicaid, by the VA, by employers, and by individuals paying out of pocket. Can that be paid for out of one-tenth the defense budget?** In a word, no.

*How did we get from a program that was supposed to cut the deficit to one that will “have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period.”???
source - http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/05/CBO-Quietly-Drops-Forecast-Obamacare-Will-Cut-Deficit
Figuring that out would be a very interesting exercise for the student.
One of the reasons I suspect the single payer plans currently on the table is our federal government’s long, long history of lowballing cost estimates, particularly in health care.

**I am fine with cutting the defense budget, especially if it involves rolling back our world policeman status. But even a one-third cut will not come close to paying for what you seem to think it will.

1 Like
66

ED8A1B81-D872-49F6-A558-1F68C6FA00A8
ED8A1B81-D872-49F6-A558-1F68C6FA00A8.jpeg2041×1144 140 KB

8 Likes
67

one the strongest arguments against PR statehood is that they would tilt heavily democratic. nobody wants that. even the democrats. o_O

68

Heh, nice!

The toll gate: you set it up the day the rich start running for the hills. There’ll be no capacity for eminent domain action. They’ll all be busy running.

1 Like
69

Qué?  

70

The current filibuster rule is just a rule of the Senate. It’s not in the Constitution and can be changed or removed at any time. I wouldn’t mind going back to the old fashioned 24-7 tag team filibusters.

1 Like
71

We spend a lot more on education than nearly all of the first world, and for less result too. Yet I rarely hear about how we need to get those costs down…

72
  1. Your first article literally is the author’s opinion going against how Democrats feel about the electoral college.
  2. The second is a tag that includes article by people that actually know math saying this like:
  1. The third makes no statement about the Electoral College, but has multiple scenarios where she loses the blue wall.
  2. The last’s first line is “if the blue wall holds” and talks about campaign strategy to manipulate the electoral college.

The single instance of an article talking specifically about the electoral college says in no uncertain terms that the prevailing opinion is that the electoral college is broken. Just because you want the complaints to be about partisan politics doesn’t mean you can through a few headlines out there that don’t support your point.

5 Likes
73

But we spend under the average compared with GDP, and we spend less than half the average on secondary school. And every school that beats us in education spends just as much as we do per student.

image
image.jpg1039×555 109 KB

Really, the Netherlands and Ireland are the standouts in school costs. Almost universally the better schools are across the line when compared to the country’s GDP.

EDIT

And everyone complains about the amount spend on schools, that’s why a billionaire dunderhead is the head of the financial wing of the US education system.

9 Likes
74

For people who tout themselves as brilliant economic thinkers, conservative politicians and pundits are obsessed with the raw dollar cost to the exclusion of everything else, including larger economic context, efficient application of funds, and (way down on the list) outcomes. It’s what comes from seeing money primarily as a means of keeping score. See also the healthcare insurance debate.

7 Likes
75

Historically speaking, no political party has benefited from the EC more than another. Periods of Democratic and Republican ascendancy have come and gone under essentially pretty much the same structure since the 1830’s.

It is correct that smaller states are favored under the EC. If one party is doing better under that arrangement than the other, then the latter party can do a couple of things.

It can try to amend the Constitution, or it can try to strengthen its appeal to small-state voters.

Which do you think is more feasible???

76

Historically that is entirely inaccurate, and wasn’t the point of what you said or what I said. It has always favored two party absolutes, and it has always favored legal voter suppression and disenfranchisement as the best ways to manage the system over trying to get more votes. That’s why voter suppression has been a state issue since the dawn of time in the United States. The tilt toward rural voters has also gotten more extreme with the modernization of the world, and the over-representation means it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the government over-representing the rural states in all branches of federal government combined with the number of states with equal representation means it is impossible to reform the system because those with the objective, mathematical over-representation will never be in a position to give up that majority. And the only time the map will meaningfully change is over massive landmarks in the country - like forced desegregation.

Back on topic, most of the rise of complaints comes at a time when the popular vote is split between more than two parties and there isn’t a comfortable majority of popular support - basically 1880-1892 had a lot of complaining without the ability to capture thoughts of a massive amount of people on it, it was challenged under Wilson, then legislators sought to change the rules after 1968, and the GOP complained about it when the Midwest flipped back to blue in the 90s before Bush manages to squeak out a win while losing the popular vote. There was no point in US history where the electoral college did good outside electing Lincoln - you know, the period of the US where there were three functioning parties that ended up being crushed into the same two parties we have basically always had (town versus country, industry versus slaver, minority versus white, etc.).

6 Likes
77

…

78

Except your argument is that A) the push for change is recent when the initial legislative push started in 1968 and has never been drummed out, B) rural states basically have always held the power and didn’t change unless forced to outside of the legislative process, and C) the relative landscape between rural and urban have been pretty much the same since 1830.

So - it is impossible to change the constitution without a massive majority in rural people, and the only ways to change the constitution requires a majority of rural voters through Congress or through governors. It’s infeasible to ever say that system could ever be appealed in a way that gives up power in a just system. We literally fought a Civil War over it once already.

It also makes it virtually impossible to appeal to their voters since their voters know this because the people appealing to them make them fear every single encroach on their established power regardless of how small - see gun rights, the war on Christmas, LGBT rights, minority rights, slave ownership, the Benghazi scandal ->email scandal -> FBI pre-written speech scandal being investigated for a decade and tens of millions of dollars, etc. There’s not a single important topic to voters than has not been built to appeal on an urban versus rural divide, and there is no way to bridge that gap without bending over backwards and, for example, promising literally everything they want no matter how dumb it is (like Trump did).

So your proposal for change is between 1) the functionally impossible or 2) continued political pandering that is the issue to begin with. Therefore your argument is only a slight elaboration on a gif featuring sunglasses falling over a dog’s eyes.

5 Likes
79

Oh I’d be thrilled if they did that. I like that the senate made itself abide by procedural rules that let a political minority be heard and even prevail, but it should be rare and only used when it really matters. The effort and cost of a 24-7 filibuster ensured that.

1 Like
80

it’s a poorly kept secret that the democrats never do anything to help themselves.

they seem to prefer the higher difficultly levels of the political game; vying for the republican neo-liberal vote over policies that would help their base.

3 Likes