On my last post I mentioned that I would explain what the 2010 elections means for people. If you follow politics, then you know that gerrymandering is a system done after the census is taken. If you don't know what gerrymandering is, then you might have heard of redistricting.
The basic concept is that you redraw dividing boundary lines into whatever pleases your whim, as long as it follows basic guidelines. This is a simplified summation, and if you're interested in trying it out, there's a gerrymandering game:
"http://www.redistrictinggame.org"
For wikipedia information:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering"
Here's an example of how things will play out:
Since Florida took 2 of New York's House Seats due to changes in population, Florida now has more representatives in the House of Representatives. Since a Republican governor was elected in Florida, the governor has some influence in how the Florida districts are set. Generally, the party in power maximizes their power and minimizes the minority. If you look at the wikipedia example, you can see that a minority can overpower a majority, which in my opinion is a real problem. On a side note, both parties do this, so please stop acting innocent. On another unrelated side note, the GOP messed up in failing to take Nevada and Delaware senators. Had they gain it, it would have been an unprecedented swing worthy of applause (not that they shouldn't be applauded for capturing the House, although I have mentioned before that I just prefer the Senate more). Add in a few more states with Republican governors and you have a high chance of a Republican supermajority in the House (general assumption).
Now, if you didn't bother checking the wikipedia site, I'll post it here.
Suppose there is party X and party Y, with zones A, B, and C.
100 people in the zone, 60 support X, 40 Support Y.
Normally, X would be the majority. However, suppose we have this scenario:
Let A have 34 people that support X
Let B have 13 people that support X and 20 people that support Y
Let C have 13 people that support X and 20 people that support Y
If you wanted perfect distribution just add 1 more X voter to B and C, and you would still get a party Y majority.
*Super credits to the person that explained this, although I don't know who the author is.
From this, we see that the minority has power over the majority. Now onto the concept of packing and cracking.
Packing is when you place all voters of a particular preference to an area to waste there votes. If this statement doesn't make sense, think of this: A district is known to vote 100% to a particular party. Assuming everyone votes the same way, the marginal effect of a vote is 0. Why? Well, if a district only voted party X then it wouldn't matter if 1 person voted for X or 1,000,000 people voted for X. The result would always be X. This is similar to situation A.
Cracking is where you minimize opposing votes. Assuming a district always votes 51% X and 49% Y, we see that X always wins. As you can see, the 49% that voted for Y is voided. This is similar to situation B and C.
I asked a few people if they knew what gerrymandering/redistricting was, and from what I can tell it's 50% (2 yes, 2 no). Obviously, I kind of expected it because of the education that they received (all 18+, but different high schools in NYC).
I would go into a long rant about how I lost my faith in the American voting system, but that's another story (that would most likely not be covered in this blog).
If you want to see the current districting, "http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house"
Edit 1: I would like to note that while the usage of technology has made it more bipartisan and the dirty tactics have been deemed unconstitutional, the fact that this system can lead to abuse is something every citizen should be aware of.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The Aftermath of November 2, 2010
If you've been following the news, now is the time where the Tea Party has a chance to shine. If you haven't followed on politics, I don't blame you. It's utterly disgusting. Anyway, I will be using the NYT report of the elections, because I find them "fair and balanced" more than Fox News. Then again, I prefer news with no opinions. But enough of the sidetracking. This is the link: "http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate"
Click on House-->Map for its section, and click Governor-->Map for its section.
Oh, If you're wondering why I'm doing this late at night, it helps to get all the info out. Not to mention that I procrastinate HEAVILY. At time of writing, the NYT election section is not complete, so I'll go with what I have and edit later.
First, the Governor elections.
Democrats lose 9, Republicans gain 9, 1 Independent gain, and 5 Undecided. As of post, 15 Democratic Governors, 29 Republican Governors, 1 Independent Governor, and 5 Undecided. Since we have 50 states, it goes without saying that Republicans have a minimum of 4, maximum of 9 more than 25. Generally, you wouldn't really care about this. But since it's 2010, we should (more on that later). Oh, and for those that ran for governor for NY, thank you for your time, and congratulations to Andrew Cuomo.
Next, the Senate elections.
Democrats lose 6, Republicans gain 6, 2 Undecided. As of post, 50 Democratic Senators, 46 Republican Senators, 2 Independents that generally side with Democrats, and 2 Undecided. I would like to note, in my heavily biased opinion, that I congratulate: Barbara Boxer for defeating the former HP CEO because I have an issue with HP more than Dell, Harry Reid for managing to remain a senator, Lisa Murkowski if she beats the Tea Party-backed Joe Miller even if she employs Benjamin Ginsberg (the lawyer in the in defending 13,400 votes "http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1104-alaska-senate-20101104,0,2136105.story", Delaware for not picking O'Donnell (honestly GOP, you probably had a better chance if you went with Mike Castle),and Rand Paul for showing the most promise of all Tea Party members (even if you did stupid things).
Finally, the House elections.
Democrats lose 60, Republicans gain 60, 10 undecided. As of post, 186 Democrats, 239 Republicans, and 10 Undecided. In my opinion, the Senate is much more prestigious than the House, and I don't really care much about it, so I won't be making any remarks here.
What does this mean? Check the next post!
Click on House-->Map for its section, and click Governor-->Map for its section.
Oh, If you're wondering why I'm doing this late at night, it helps to get all the info out. Not to mention that I procrastinate HEAVILY. At time of writing, the NYT election section is not complete, so I'll go with what I have and edit later.
First, the Governor elections.
Democrats lose 9, Republicans gain 9, 1 Independent gain, and 5 Undecided. As of post, 15 Democratic Governors, 29 Republican Governors, 1 Independent Governor, and 5 Undecided. Since we have 50 states, it goes without saying that Republicans have a minimum of 4, maximum of 9 more than 25. Generally, you wouldn't really care about this. But since it's 2010, we should (more on that later). Oh, and for those that ran for governor for NY, thank you for your time, and congratulations to Andrew Cuomo.
Next, the Senate elections.
Democrats lose 6, Republicans gain 6, 2 Undecided. As of post, 50 Democratic Senators, 46 Republican Senators, 2 Independents that generally side with Democrats, and 2 Undecided. I would like to note, in my heavily biased opinion, that I congratulate: Barbara Boxer for defeating the former HP CEO because I have an issue with HP more than Dell, Harry Reid for managing to remain a senator, Lisa Murkowski if she beats the Tea Party-backed Joe Miller even if she employs Benjamin Ginsberg (the lawyer in the in defending 13,400 votes "http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1104-alaska-senate-20101104,0,2136105.story", Delaware for not picking O'Donnell (honestly GOP, you probably had a better chance if you went with Mike Castle),and Rand Paul for showing the most promise of all Tea Party members (even if you did stupid things).
Finally, the House elections.
Democrats lose 60, Republicans gain 60, 10 undecided. As of post, 186 Democrats, 239 Republicans, and 10 Undecided. In my opinion, the Senate is much more prestigious than the House, and I don't really care much about it, so I won't be making any remarks here.
What does this mean? Check the next post!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
On Ground Zero
To begin, let me state my stance on the "Ground Zero Mosque" or "Park51". I am in full support of it. As for my main reason, here it is:
1. They have a permit.
They went through the appropriate channels to obtain a permit for construction, which means that it's legal.
---
On a strict scale, this would be fine. However, the rise of several debatable issues lead me to address them as well.
1. We should honor the families who died on 9/11
I agree completely with this, but it doesn't pertain to the issue. Just like the pastor from Florida. If he had a permit to burn any holy book, then on a technicality he should be allowed to under the protection of the First Amendment. It may be in bad taste, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Not to mention the fact that families of both sides of the argument disagree with each other on this issue, which leads to the question of who should we side with? If we side with the families that support the Mosque/Park51, we won't side with the families that oppose the Mosque/Park51. If we side with the families that oppose the Mosque/Park51, we won't side with the families that support the Mosque/Park51. Either way, it's superficial to say that we should respect the families of those who died on 9/11. The only way I would consider this is if ALL families would want or wouldn't want the Mosque/Park51 to be built.
2. The funding of the Mosque/Park51 is suspicious/lead by terrorists.
I've only heard this once or twice, but I'll address it anyway. This is, in my opinion, a red herring. One reason is that I don't really think that the people who oppose the Mosque/Park51 would have cared whether it was funded by terrorists or regular people; I think they would rant regardless. Another reason is that I wouldn't care who's building what with what money. If, hypothetically, the KKK wanted to build something right next door to my apartment, a red flag would raise in my mind. If the city allows it, then I'll side with the city. The main point is that they have a permit; therefore, they have a legal right to build it, regardless of the funding. However, if you really want to see who's financing the project, be my guest as I could care less.
3. It's two blocks down.
I'll use an extreme point to showcase my view. Assume that 2 blocks is not enough. Ok, then what about 3? If not, how about 5? If not, how about 10? If not, how about out of NYC? If not, how about out of NY?(That was rhetorical and exaggerative. I'm trying to say that "close" and "far" are subjective terms.) To me, the only test on closeness for me is if was 0 blocks down; that is,if it's right on the WTC. And honestly, I'd oppose any religious organization trying to build it right on the WTC. 1 block difference is enough for me.
---
And now for attacks on people (which may or may not be ad hominem):
1. Those who feel that Arizona should be able to pass their law, but that the Mosque/Park51 should not be build.
Honestly, blatant hypocrisy is amidst. These people believe that Arizona has the right to pass an immigration law (that generally belongs to the federal government), but believe that New York City should not let people build something.
My personal take on is is that Arizona has the right to pass the law, even though I disagree with it. There are also some portions which may be considered unconstitutional, but other than that I support Arizona for putting it's citizen's interest, even if there are dire consequences. For the Mosque/Park51, these same people who champion more local government are bashing New York City for allowing the Mosque/Park51 to be built. If you don't see the connection, please post in the comments and I'll elaborate more. I would bash Obama on immigration reform, but that's another topic.
-
I may add more to this, but this is all I can think of now.
1. They have a permit.
They went through the appropriate channels to obtain a permit for construction, which means that it's legal.
---
On a strict scale, this would be fine. However, the rise of several debatable issues lead me to address them as well.
1. We should honor the families who died on 9/11
I agree completely with this, but it doesn't pertain to the issue. Just like the pastor from Florida. If he had a permit to burn any holy book, then on a technicality he should be allowed to under the protection of the First Amendment. It may be in bad taste, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Not to mention the fact that families of both sides of the argument disagree with each other on this issue, which leads to the question of who should we side with? If we side with the families that support the Mosque/Park51, we won't side with the families that oppose the Mosque/Park51. If we side with the families that oppose the Mosque/Park51, we won't side with the families that support the Mosque/Park51. Either way, it's superficial to say that we should respect the families of those who died on 9/11. The only way I would consider this is if ALL families would want or wouldn't want the Mosque/Park51 to be built.
2. The funding of the Mosque/Park51 is suspicious/lead by terrorists.
I've only heard this once or twice, but I'll address it anyway. This is, in my opinion, a red herring. One reason is that I don't really think that the people who oppose the Mosque/Park51 would have cared whether it was funded by terrorists or regular people; I think they would rant regardless. Another reason is that I wouldn't care who's building what with what money. If, hypothetically, the KKK wanted to build something right next door to my apartment, a red flag would raise in my mind. If the city allows it, then I'll side with the city. The main point is that they have a permit; therefore, they have a legal right to build it, regardless of the funding. However, if you really want to see who's financing the project, be my guest as I could care less.
3. It's two blocks down.
I'll use an extreme point to showcase my view. Assume that 2 blocks is not enough. Ok, then what about 3? If not, how about 5? If not, how about 10? If not, how about out of NYC? If not, how about out of NY?(That was rhetorical and exaggerative. I'm trying to say that "close" and "far" are subjective terms.) To me, the only test on closeness for me is if was 0 blocks down; that is,if it's right on the WTC. And honestly, I'd oppose any religious organization trying to build it right on the WTC. 1 block difference is enough for me.
---
And now for attacks on people (which may or may not be ad hominem):
1. Those who feel that Arizona should be able to pass their law, but that the Mosque/Park51 should not be build.
Honestly, blatant hypocrisy is amidst. These people believe that Arizona has the right to pass an immigration law (that generally belongs to the federal government), but believe that New York City should not let people build something.
My personal take on is is that Arizona has the right to pass the law, even though I disagree with it. There are also some portions which may be considered unconstitutional, but other than that I support Arizona for putting it's citizen's interest, even if there are dire consequences. For the Mosque/Park51, these same people who champion more local government are bashing New York City for allowing the Mosque/Park51 to be built. If you don't see the connection, please post in the comments and I'll elaborate more. I would bash Obama on immigration reform, but that's another topic.
-
I may add more to this, but this is all I can think of now.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Beginning of a Long Rant
Since there's so many topics that I'd like to cover but can't really decide on which ones, I'll post a list of things that pop up in my mind that I have things to talk about. Please pick any one of them, and then I'll decide on how to elaborate my position.
Gay rights/Gay marriage
Democrats
Republicans
Tea Party
Park51/Ground Zero Mosque/Whatever people call it
Role of Government
Economics
Health Care
Bailouts
Tax
Laws/Reform
Privacy
And many more...
If you have other suggestions, please feel free to message me on twitter (which I rarely check), via email, or through a PM. Of course, you can also just reply here as well.
Gay rights/Gay marriage
Democrats
Republicans
Tea Party
Park51/Ground Zero Mosque/Whatever people call it
Role of Government
Economics
Health Care
Bailouts
Tax
Laws/Reform
Privacy
And many more...
If you have other suggestions, please feel free to message me on twitter (which I rarely check), via email, or through a PM. Of course, you can also just reply here as well.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Hello, and welcome to my blog!
I'm Jack, but feel free to call be A Dummy/Dummy. I'm a lazy procrastinator who loves video games, food, and humor. I'm an independent(not the party) in politics, but I tend to lean towards the left.
In this blog, I'll discuss issues that we face in the United States. Flaming/trolling is allowed up to a certain extent, as you can see in the Comment Policy (which i figured out how to do after staring at the screen for 15 minutes). I accept any and all criticism, as long as they're reasonable. Note that the Comment Policy may change at any time, so please don't abuse it.
Oh, I might edit this post later, if that's even possible. If you'd like more info about me (which I would say is kinda creepy...), feel free to post back or ask on Twitter. If you're in my class, you can ask me in class. As for Twitter, note that I rarely check it (I prefer playing video games :D).
In this blog, I'll discuss issues that we face in the United States. Flaming/trolling is allowed up to a certain extent, as you can see in the Comment Policy (which i figured out how to do after staring at the screen for 15 minutes). I accept any and all criticism, as long as they're reasonable. Note that the Comment Policy may change at any time, so please don't abuse it.
Oh, I might edit this post later, if that's even possible. If you'd like more info about me (which I would say is kinda creepy...), feel free to post back or ask on Twitter. If you're in my class, you can ask me in class. As for Twitter, note that I rarely check it (I prefer playing video games :D).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)