That’s pretty creative but “you cut, I choose” is better. It’s sometimes referred to as “fair gerrymandering.”
But we can do way better with the FRA (which, unusually, might have favored the GOP this time).
That’s a misreading and misrepresentation. I do not automatically reject the idea that someone can be non-partisan, there are plenty. What I question is whether labelling a position as non-partisan means that it will be automatically filled by someone non-partisan.
So, two are nominated by the party in power, and one is nominated by the party not in power, that’s relatively similar to such systems set up in the US.
Yeah, it does make it more obvious where someone’s loyalties lie.
Technically, that’s how it works here as well. It’s only very recently that the Secretaries of State have decided that they may look into certifying votes on a partisan basis, and it hasn’t actually happened yet.
I don’t know that’s going to change soon. But I also don’t know that the systems in Canada or UK will remain free from partisanship. Whoever appoints these people to the commissions has an incentive to pick people who will draw it in their favor.
As long as people are in charge, they will find ways of gaming the system.
But is there any requirement for the delegation to match the voters? It would be trivial to take a state that leans 55-45, and, using neutral criteria, come up with a map that is 100% the dominant party. If you are not actually considering where people live and balancing districts, you are going to more often than not have an unbalanced delegation.
Our judges are labeled as non-partisan positions as well.
How would that work? The people who are doing the “choosing” are the voters, and how those voters are distributed is done by the people doing the cutting.
Heh. They’re just tools, man. What you do with 'em is up to you!
I don’t think I understand your question. I might be assuming incorrectly that everyone is familiar with the “you cut, I choose” districting method.
However, most of them are endorsed by a party.
I guess so. It’s not a method that any state actually uses and has only a very few articles about it. I would have assumed that no one had heard about it, and given a link and brief description.
The method for laying our congressional districts does end up being a bit more complicated than cutting a birthday cake.
Anyway, I think the process would be extremely expensive and drawn out, and that it certainly has a flaw that there is no way to create majority minority districts, which means minorities are likely to have little or no representation in congress.
This is true. But they are still considered to be non-partisan. Sometimes they even are.
The point was that I don’t trust that someone is non-partisan just because the position that they are given is considered to be non-partisan.
And just because a judge is appointed by the government rather than elected by the people doesn’t make them non-partisan either.
Who establishes it, who picks the three “independent and non-partisan” people, and how do they determine that they are non-partisan?
It’s not the same number of people that’s the problem. That’s easy. It’s manipulating which districts those people are in in order to secure electoral advantage that is.
Under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must appoint the BC electoral Boundaries Commission consisting of:
- A judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal who is nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council
- A person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and
- The Chief Electoral Officer appointed under the Elections Act.
These folks are pretty competent, and definitely non partisan
Interesting quoting there.
Anyway, I guess if you are confident that the people appointing these positions can never be swayed by partisanship, then I guess that makes you confident that the people in charge of distracting could never be swayed by partisanship.
Maybe Canadians are just better, but I don’t trust people that much. If there’s a way to game the system, someone will do so. And I don’t see anything that prevents the party in charge from gaming the system.
Then there’s the other question as to what goal they have in drawing districts. You have indicated that it is simply to ensure that each district has a similar number of people. We have that already. Is there any sort of mandate to this commission to get a delegation that is reflective of the voters?
I mean, I think the criteria should be relatively easy. You take the number of voters for one party vs another party, and the delegation sent to Washington should be as close to that percentage as possible. At that point, it doesn’t really matter how you rearrange the chairs, the goal has been accomplished.
If that’s not the criteria used, then how does the redistricting commission choose what map is best? Do they ever send delegations that are not reflective of the voters?
There is a vast difference between being non-partisan and being “labeled” non-partisan. A few spectacular cites off the top of my head: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Aileen “Loose” Cannon.
Yes, that is exactly the point I am making. Saying that a judge is non-partisan isn’t the same as if the judge actually is non-partisan.
Are we claiming here that Canada has never had a judge who had any form of political bias? If so, great, that means that Canadians are just better people than the rest of us, incapable of corruption, because it’s not the words someone wrote down on a piece of paper that prevents that. If not, then doesn’t that also mean that any position regarded as “non-partisan” could have a partisan individual appointed to it?
The point that @Northern_Piper is making is that political partisanship in the judiciary is much, much less of a problem in Canada than it is in the US. For example, the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court of Canada is routinely a non-controversial non-event, and I couldn’t tell you the political leanings of a single one of the justices, nor can I think of any ruling that seemed ideologically motivated.
A couple of other features is mandatory transparency, and advertised public meetings for input. If there was ANY hint of partisanship at any stage, the shit would hit the fan, bigly. They don’t just announce the new riding areas - there is literally a year of public input first.
We really can’t solve our representation problems as long as we continue to have single member districts and first past the post elections.
Also, the House needs to be expanded in size by a substantial amount.
Cite.
If its not too much bother can you guys send a small expeditionary force to take us over and make us a vassal state? You’ll be greeted with flowers and open arms as liberators I promise (well at least by me you will).
Ditch the monarch, first.
Yeah, but unfortunately, it’d require a pretty substantial change to the constitution to get that.
Agreed, and at least that doesn’t require any changes to the constitution, just an act of congress.
Nick Fuentes (a Christian White Nationalist) called for a dictatorship stating that “We need a dictatorship. We need to take control of the government. We need to force people to believe what we believe.”
And before somebody says “Yeah, but he’s just some fringe extremist” that several elected Republicans (MTG, Boebert, and others) have spoken at his conventions. And yes, they are also idiot extremists … that just won re-election.
Bill Maher is a doofus, but he’s not wrong this time.