I've been calling for reform to our redistricting process for a long time.

Here's yet another example why it's needed:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...n-bad.html

But what to do instead?

My own thought is that we should go to proportional representation. That would eliminate a lot of the reasons for and against.

(12-14-2018 03:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I've been calling for reform to our redistricting process for a long time.

Here's yet another example why it's needed:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...n-bad.html

What do you propose be done?

Gerrymandering by the party in power has been done by all parties for over 200 years. It is part of the spoils of electoral victory. Elections have consequences.

In theory, I agree. But how to do it? I have no idea. If you have one, let's hear it.

You refer to "our" redistricting process. Do you mean for Texas or for a national standard?

This is easy to fix.
Not quite as easy to pass.
Here’s the core of one plan that would solve most of the bad points of the current system.

1. Increase the total number of reps (by at least 2x)
2. Draw representative districts based primarily on existing County lines
A. Counties with populations between 70% and 140% of the magic target number of “citizens per representative” simply get one rep.
B. Smaller counties can be combined (continuously) with other smaller counties to form a “quorum” of 70% or higher.
C. Larger counties can be subdivided, but only whilst respecting city limit boundaries.
D. Limit the number of dividing lines in large city and large county districts to a reasonable number, such as three or at the very most five. (I.e. Houston inside 610, south of I-10 and north of Braes Bayou.)

This plan is simple enough, it still leaves some leeway to leverage state house power to get one or two extra seats for the party in a big state. But it preserves the integrity of the process, and effectively eliminates most Gerrymandering. The main thing is more voters know and understand where their district is located.

This is a nationwide proposal as it increases the number of representatives. But other than point #1 it could well be passed and effective at a state level.

P.s. if this passed, we might have to put some form of protection in place to keep county lines from being moved arbitrarily without supermajority consent of affected populations.

(12-14-2018 06:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 03:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I've been calling for reform to our redistricting process for a long time.

Here's yet another example why it's needed:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...n-bad.html

What do you propose be done?

Gerrymandering by the party in power has been done by all parties for over 200 years. It is part of the spoils of electoral victory. Elections have consequences.

In theory, I agree. But how to do it? I have no idea. If you have one, let's hear it.

You refer to "our" redistricting process. Do you mean for Texas or for a national standard?

The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

One change that might help would be to have a long lag time between when redistricting is done and when it takes effect. Making the political effect of boundary changes harder to predict would presumably reduce the incentive to manipulate those boundaries in detail.

(12-16-2018 07:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 06:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 03:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I've been calling for reform to our redistricting process for a long time.

Here's yet another example why it's needed:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...n-bad.html

What do you propose be done?

Gerrymandering by the party in power has been done by all parties for over 200 years. It is part of the spoils of electoral victory. Elections have consequences.

In theory, I agree. But how to do it? I have no idea. If you have one, let's hear it.

You refer to "our" redistricting process. Do you mean for Texas or for a national standard?

The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

Your use of the word "solution" led me to wonder: Is this really a problem?

Gerrymandering has produced quite a number of "safe" districts for black and other minority candidates, so wouldn't eliminating gerrymandering reduce opportunity for minorities? If gerrymandering was the solution to racism...

(12-16-2018 07:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

The problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is a simple question--where do you find the angels to serve as commissioners?

Requiring supermajority approval is perhaps a more workable solution.

But as OO suggests, a big problem is trying to create opportunities for minority representation. If you want minority districts, you have to gerrymander to create them. When you gerrymander one district, you necessarily create knock-on gerrymandering effects for surrounding districts. Geometry forces that.

My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

(12-17-2018 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 07:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

The problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is a simple question--where do you find the angels to serve as commissioners?

Requiring supermajority approval is perhaps a more workable solution.

But as OO suggests, a big problem is trying to create opportunities for minority representation. If you want minority districts, you have to gerrymander to create them. When you gerrymander one district, you necessarily create knock-on gerrymandering effects for surrounding districts. Geometry forces that.

My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

First past the post has issues and I generally like the idea of proportional representation better (primarily for the reason you mention). I struggle with the fact that it removes direct representation, unless there is a way you’ve thought of to avoid that issue.

(12-18-2018 06:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 07:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

The problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is a simple question--where do you find the angels to serve as commissioners?
Requiring supermajority approval is perhaps a more workable solution.
But as OO suggests, a big problem is trying to create opportunities for minority representation. If you want minority districts, you have to gerrymander to create them. When you gerrymander one district, you necessarily create knock-on gerrymandering effects for surrounding districts. Geometry forces that.
My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

First past the post has issues and I generally like the idea of proportional representation better (primarily for the reason you mention). I struggle with the fact that it removes direct representation, unless there is a way you’ve thought of to avoid that issue.

As far as direct representation, I see an advantage as well. Let's say you are a republican living in the LAX or SFO metro areas, or a democrat in West Texas. Your chances of having a representative from your side of the aisle are slim and none. With proportional representation, unless the balance is just way tilted to one side, you're going to have someone who can represent your views. My idea is based on 5-member districts, with the party that gets the majority of total votes getting at least 3 seats, or more based on percentage of vote, and the remaining seats allocated to losing party, or parties, based on percentage of total vote. The vast majority of them would probably break down 3-2 or possibly 3-1-1 with a third party. There would be a few that break 4-1, but even then the minority party would have someone to represent them. The approach I have in mind would be for each party to propose a full slate, then apportion seats based on the percentage to each party, with the party quota being filled by those who got the highest vote totals. So if republicans get 60% and democrats 40%, you would elect the top 3 republicans and the top 2 democrats. Under that scenario, crossover votes would become golden, because your chances of getting seated depend both on how many votes your party gets in total, and where you rank among your party's vote-getters. I would hope that approach would reverse some of the extreme partisanship that we now see.

My problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is that they don't exist. Nobody who has spent enough time in politics to be qualified to serve on such a commission is truly nonpartisan. And you need an odd number to avoid deadlocks, and the simple majority can always overcome bipartisanship. Maybe bipartisanship would work with a supermajority requirement, but even that is questionable. So as I asked, where do you get the angels that you need to serve on such commissions?

(12-18-2018 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 07:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

The problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is a simple question--where do you find the angels to serve as commissioners?
Requiring supermajority approval is perhaps a more workable solution.
But as OO suggests, a big problem is trying to create opportunities for minority representation. If you want minority districts, you have to gerrymander to create them. When you gerrymander one district, you necessarily create knock-on gerrymandering effects for surrounding districts. Geometry forces that.
My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

First past the post has issues and I generally like the idea of proportional representation better (primarily for the reason you mention). I struggle with the fact that it removes direct representation, unless there is a way you’ve thought of to avoid that issue.

As far as direct representation, I see an advantage as well. Let's say you are a republican living in the LAX or SFO metro areas, or a democrat in West Texas. Your chances of having a representative from your side of the aisle are slim and none. With proportional representation, unless the balance is just way tilted to one side, you're going to have someone who can represent your views. My idea is based on 5-member districts, with the party that gets the majority of total votes getting at least 3 seats, or more based on percentage of vote, and the remaining seats allocated to losing party, or parties, based on percentage of total vote. The vast majority of them would probably break down 3-2 or possibly 3-1-1 with a third party. There would be a few that break 4-1, but even then the minority party would have someone to represent them. The approach I have in mind would be for each party to propose a full slate, then apportion seats based on the percentage to each party, with the party quota being filled by those who got the highest vote totals. So if republicans get 60% and democrats 40%, you would elect the top 3 republicans and the top 2 democrats. Under that scenario, crossover votes would become golden, because your chances of getting seated depend both on how many votes your party gets in total, and where you rank among your party's vote-getters. I would hope that approach would reverse some of the extreme partisanship that we now see.

My problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is that they don't exist. Nobody who has spent enough time in politics to be qualified to serve on such a commission is truly nonpartisan. And you need an odd number to avoid deadlocks, and the simple majority can always overcome bipartisanship. Maybe bipartisanship would work with a supermajority requirement, but even that is questionable. So as I asked, where do you get the angels that you need to serve on such commissions?

Not a bad idea on how to attempt to address the lack of direct representation. Since you would be able to vote for your candidate of choice, and your vote would count both towards the party and, if your party gets enough votes, which person within the party is chosen. Still not direct representation, but as you say, it does allow more minority parties to actually be represented, which I think is better overall.

Except that would make representatives even more loyal to their party and even less concerned about the people they're supposed to represent, than they already are. They would literally be party representatives and not district representatives.

(12-18-2018 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 07:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  The bolded is of course correct, so the solution that some states have hit on (with Ohio set to become the next) is to put a system in place where having control of the legislature doesn't necessarily mean having control of redistricting. Wikipedia This can be done through establishing nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to do it, or by requiring supermajority approval in the legislature.

The problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is a simple question--where do you find the angels to serve as commissioners?
Requiring supermajority approval is perhaps a more workable solution.
But as OO suggests, a big problem is trying to create opportunities for minority representation. If you want minority districts, you have to gerrymander to create them. When you gerrymander one district, you necessarily create knock-on gerrymandering effects for surrounding districts. Geometry forces that.
My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

First past the post has issues and I generally like the idea of proportional representation better (primarily for the reason you mention). I struggle with the fact that it removes direct representation, unless there is a way you’ve thought of to avoid that issue.

As far as direct representation, I see an advantage as well. Let's say you are a republican living in the LAX or SFO metro areas, or a democrat in West Texas. Your chances of having a representative from your side of the aisle are slim and none. With proportional representation, unless the balance is just way tilted to one side, you're going to have someone who can represent your views. My idea is based on 5-member districts, with the party that gets the majority of total votes getting at least 3 seats, or more based on percentage of vote, and the remaining seats allocated to losing party, or parties, based on percentage of total vote. The vast majority of them would probably break down 3-2 or possibly 3-1-1 with a third party. There would be a few that break 4-1, but even then the minority party would have someone to represent them. The approach I have in mind would be for each party to propose a full slate, then apportion seats based on the percentage to each party, with the party quota being filled by those who got the highest vote totals. So if republicans get 60% and democrats 40%, you would elect the top 3 republicans and the top 2 democrats. Under that scenario, crossover votes would become golden, because your chances of getting seated depend both on how many votes your party gets in total, and where you rank among your party's vote-getters. I would hope that approach would reverse some of the extreme partisanship that we now see.

My problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is that they don't exist. Nobody who has spent enough time in politics to be qualified to serve on such a commission is truly nonpartisan. And you need an odd number to avoid deadlocks, and the simple majority can always overcome bipartisanship. Maybe bipartisanship would work with a supermajority requirement, but even that is questionable. So as I asked, where do you get the angels that you need to serve on such commissions?

For the state legislatures, this would be a state fix.

Then the question becomes, which state blinks first, since moving to that system by definition strengthens the opponents of the party in power in that state.

For the US Congress, that would mean repealing 2 USC 2(b?c?) that specifically requires that limited voting on single member districts to members of the district (i.e. removed general district voting). Interestingly IIRC from my Election Law class (so long ago, hope for my 'academic' credentials I have the cite correct for some in this crowd) general ticket voting used to be allowed until sometime until the late 60's. In fact, districts themselves werent mandated until the 'run-up' period to the 1860's.

But given the absolute crushing support for each party within their enclaves (rural v urban, flyover states v. 'non-deplorable' states), do you envision any return to the pre 1860 viewpoint by *either* party? I cant see any support in any form to return to any of the: a) no districts, general state selection; or b) single representative districts, general district voting; or any repeal of 2 USC mandating one representative.

The path to get there is truly akin to a Prisoner's Dilemna, whether it be at the Federal or the state level.

Look, the idea is good, perhaps even workable. But the obstacles to it kind of make the idea somewhat 'Mary Poppins' in nature.

(12-18-2018 10:42 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Except that would make representatives even more loyal to their party and even less concerned about the people they're supposed to represent, than they already are. They would literally be party representatives and not district representatives.

Yes and no. If a candidate is popular enough, under this system they actually have a shot at being elected as a third party candidate. So if they feel that the party no longer represents them, they can change parties and/or create their own. And if their support is great enough, steal a seat since they do not have to garner more than 50% of the vote.

(12-18-2018 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

First past the post has issues and I generally like the idea of proportional representation better (primarily for the reason you mention). I struggle with the fact that it removes direct representation, unless there is a way you’ve thought of to avoid that issue.

As far as direct representation, I see an advantage as well. Let's say you are a republican living in the LAX or SFO metro areas, or a democrat in West Texas. Your chances of having a representative from your side of the aisle are slim and none. With proportional representation, unless the balance is just way tilted to one side, you're going to have someone who can represent your views. My idea is based on 5-member districts, with the party that gets the majority of total votes getting at least 3 seats, or more based on percentage of vote, and the remaining seats allocated to losing party, or parties, based on percentage of total vote. The vast majority of them would probably break down 3-2 or possibly 3-1-1 with a third party. There would be a few that break 4-1, but even then the minority party would have someone to represent them. The approach I have in mind would be for each party to propose a full slate, then apportion seats based on the percentage to each party, with the party quota being filled by those who got the highest vote totals. So if republicans get 60% and democrats 40%, you would elect the top 3 republicans and the top 2 democrats. Under that scenario, crossover votes would become golden, because your chances of getting seated depend both on how many votes your party gets in total, and where you rank among your party's vote-getters. I would hope that approach would reverse some of the extreme partisanship that we now see.
My problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is that they don't exist. Nobody who has spent enough time in politics to be qualified to serve on such a commission is truly nonpartisan. And you need an odd number to avoid deadlocks, and the simple majority can always overcome bipartisanship. Maybe bipartisanship would work with a supermajority requirement, but even that is questionable. So as I asked, where do you get the angels that you need to serve on such commissions?

For the state legislatures, this would be a state fix.
Then the question becomes, which state blinks first, since moving to that system by definition strengthens the opponents of the party in power in that state.
For the US Congress, that would mean repealing 2 USC 2(b?c?) that specifically requires that limited voting on single member districts to members of the district (i.e. removed general district voting). Interestingly IIRC from my Election Law class (so long ago, hope for my 'academic' credentials I have the cite correct for some in this crowd) general ticket voting used to be allowed until sometime until the late 60's. In fact, districts themselves werent mandated until the 'run-up' period to the 1860's.
But given the absolute crushing support for each party within their enclaves (rural v urban, flyover states v. 'non-deplorable' states), do you envision any return to the pre 1860 viewpoint by *either* party? I cant see any support in any form to return to any of the: a) no districts, general state selection; or b) single representative districts, general district voting; or any repeal of 2 USC mandating one representative.
The path to get there is truly akin to a Prisoner's Dilemna, whether it be at the Federal or the state level.
Look, the idea is good, perhaps even workable. But the obstacles to it kind of make the idea somewhat 'Mary Poppins' in nature.

I agree that the political obstacles are fierce. That doesn't keep it from being the right or best answer. It needs some party to advance it, just like Bismarck health care and consumption taxes and, for that matter, legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. So far nobody has. Perhaps nobody will ever advance any of them.

(12-18-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My approach would be to reduce the impact of gerrymandering through some form of proportional representation. Admittedly, that is at least partly because I lean libertarian and proportional representation tends to give third and other smaller parties a better shot at electing representation.

First past the post has issues and I generally like the idea of proportional representation better (primarily for the reason you mention). I struggle with the fact that it removes direct representation, unless there is a way you’ve thought of to avoid that issue.

As far as direct representation, I see an advantage as well. Let's say you are a republican living in the LAX or SFO metro areas, or a democrat in West Texas. Your chances of having a representative from your side of the aisle are slim and none. With proportional representation, unless the balance is just way tilted to one side, you're going to have someone who can represent your views. My idea is based on 5-member districts, with the party that gets the majority of total votes getting at least 3 seats, or more based on percentage of vote, and the remaining seats allocated to losing party, or parties, based on percentage of total vote. The vast majority of them would probably break down 3-2 or possibly 3-1-1 with a third party. There would be a few that break 4-1, but even then the minority party would have someone to represent them. The approach I have in mind would be for each party to propose a full slate, then apportion seats based on the percentage to each party, with the party quota being filled by those who got the highest vote totals. So if republicans get 60% and democrats 40%, you would elect the top 3 republicans and the top 2 democrats. Under that scenario, crossover votes would become golden, because your chances of getting seated depend both on how many votes your party gets in total, and where you rank among your party's vote-getters. I would hope that approach would reverse some of the extreme partisanship that we now see.
My problem with "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" commissions is that they don't exist. Nobody who has spent enough time in politics to be qualified to serve on such a commission is truly nonpartisan. And you need an odd number to avoid deadlocks, and the simple majority can always overcome bipartisanship. Maybe bipartisanship would work with a supermajority requirement, but even that is questionable. So as I asked, where do you get the angels that you need to serve on such commissions?

For the state legislatures, this would be a state fix.
Then the question becomes, which state blinks first, since moving to that system by definition strengthens the opponents of the party in power in that state.
For the US Congress, that would mean repealing 2 USC 2(b?c?) that specifically requires that limited voting on single member districts to members of the district (i.e. removed general district voting). Interestingly IIRC from my Election Law class (so long ago, hope for my 'academic' credentials I have the cite correct for some in this crowd) general ticket voting used to be allowed until sometime until the late 60's. In fact, districts themselves werent mandated until the 'run-up' period to the 1860's.
But given the absolute crushing support for each party within their enclaves (rural v urban, flyover states v. 'non-deplorable' states), do you envision any return to the pre 1860 viewpoint by *either* party? I cant see any support in any form to return to any of the: a) no districts, general state selection; or b) single representative districts, general district voting; or any repeal of 2 USC mandating one representative.
The path to get there is truly akin to a Prisoner's Dilemna, whether it be at the Federal or the state level.
Look, the idea is good, perhaps even workable. But the obstacles to it kind of make the idea somewhat 'Mary Poppins' in nature.

I agree that the political obstacles are fierce. That doesn't keep it from being the right or best answer. It needs some party to advance it, just like Bismarck health care and consumption taxes and, for that matter, legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. So far nobody has. Perhaps nobody will ever advance any of them.

As much as people have liked to poo on Ocasio-Cortez, she appears to want to be a bit of a bull in a china shop. She's been tweeting non-stop as orientation is under way about things going on behind the scenes that appear to be rather unsavory. So far she's called attention to the out-sized roles lobbyists have in freshman orientation and what they represent, and most recently the issue of allowing Congressmen to continue to trade stocks related to legislation/areas they are involved in.

We'll see how long this keeps up, but perhaps we're in for a new wave of politicians as my generation starts getting elected.

(12-18-2018 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As much as people have liked to poo on Ocasio-Cortez, she appears to want to be a bit of a bull in a china shop. She's been tweeting non-stop as orientation is under way about things going on behind the scenes that appear to be rather unsavory. So far she's called attention to the out-sized roles lobbyists have in freshman orientation and what they represent, and most recently the issue of allowing Congressmen to continue to trade stocks related to legislation/areas they are involved in.
We'll see how long this keeps up, but perhaps we're in for a new wave of politicians as my generation starts getting elected.

A stopped watch is right twice a day. I'm glad that Ocasio-Cortez has exhibited some potentially good attributes, but overall on a scale of 1 to 10, I give her a flat zero. Which happens to be the number of her ideas that I would hope to see become part of our law at some point.

I will give her a 2 --- simply for what Lad is describing. I have to give a person, any person, at least some credit for those actions.

I dont expect much from the lad's generation of politicians aside from a complete ignorance (perhaps intentional) of the concepts of Federalism and of limited government. And, OC fits right in that mold in that respect.

(12-18-2018 06:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will give her a 2 --- simply for what Lad is describing. I have to give a person, any person, at least some credit for those actions.
I dont expect much from the lad's generation of politicians aside from a complete ignorance (perhaps intentional) of the concepts of Federalism and of limited government. And, OC fits right in that mold in that respect.

You give her more than I do. To me, this generation of politicians personifies Thomas Sowell's observation, "The first lesson of economics is scarcity ... the first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

As long as the likes of Bernie and OC can buy votes with absurd promises of, "We're going to give you everything you want and somebody else is going to pay for it," we will live with the threat of running out of somebody else's money. Ask Venezuela what that looks like.

(12-19-2018 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will give her a 2 --- simply for what Lad is describing. I have to give a person, any person, at least some credit for those actions.
I dont expect much from the lad's generation of politicians aside from a complete ignorance (perhaps intentional) of the concepts of Federalism and of limited government. And, OC fits right in that mold in that respect.

You give her more than I do. To me, this generation of politicians personifies Thomas Sowell's observation, "The first lesson of economics is scarcity ... the first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

As long as the likes of Bernie and OC can buy votes with absurd promises of, "We're going to give you everything you want and somebody else is going to pay for it," we will live with the threat of running out of somebody else's money. Ask Venezuela what that looks like.

I think my third sentence and your last paragraph are inextricably entwined.