Remember, when the country was formed immigration wasn’t some complex thing you just showed up. Picture an immigration official trying to turn back a ship full of slaves because they where undocumented or missing paperwork. Meanwhile they still counted as 3/5th person in the official count.
I began immigration to the US under a Democratic administration and finished it at the end of a Democratic controlled Congress and another Democratic administration. It was consistently a badly run, non-sensical process. So FOH with claims that Democrats would like a country with open borders or that they're much better at running a sane process.
And even if those things were their policy, if the bureaucracy is still the same, what difference does it really make? The article concerns itself with links between how a bureaucracy is run and policies. This thread of conversation deals with people's faith in a "system".
That's not the point. The Supreme Court was convinced by the evidence presented (statements on record by people in the current administration) that the intend of the citizenship question was to reduce the count of people with illegal immigration status. So the question was intended to undermine the primary purpose of the census as mandated by the constitution: counting all the people.
It's clearly spelled out in the constitution that it should be an accurate count of all people.
People not eligible to vote (non-citizens, mostly slaves) were explicitly intended to be included by design.
If you want that to be different, there is a process for that, and that's a constitutional amendment.
for example, the Democrats could say "we understand some electoral college votes will be indirectly allocated to illegal immigrants, we also understand that because liberal states have more illegal immigrants it will help the left more than the right, but that's the price to pay for counting every actual US citizen."
The republicans could say, 'we want to make sure only US citizens count in terms of votes, and we will lose some actual US citizens plus we will undercount illegal immigrants (which is useful in other, non voting related ways) in order to ensure that.'
Then we can have a conversation. The way this dialog is being had, with liberal statisticians making 'scientific arguments' and republicans attacking electoral integrity is just a mess.
If you look at something like https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauth... and sort the list any way you want: There are several reliable D/R states with almost no undocumented immigrant population, and several D/R states with 3%+.
It might impact gerrymandering efforts, which gets even more complicated and again without a clear winner unless you have a preliminary version of the data to work with.
Honestly, I dislike what’s being done due to optics more than politics.
If both sides erode your faith in the system, I suspect it's because you see real problems that need to be solved, but the people "elected to solve them" are instead constrained by these games.
Speaking of systems--can you clarify what about the electoral college system you support, and perhaps cite either some systemic features/biases/incentives you think it corrects for, or perhaps some points in U.S. history where you think the electoral college system improved overall outcomes?
> I think the "Great Compromise" helps correct for the fact that people in different locations value different things and have different experiences. People who live in farming communities understand plenty of things that people in cities don't and vice-versa.
This phrasing feels like a platitude that can justify any distribution of electoral-college power we feel like creating. Can you clarify how it "corrects" for people having different locations/values/experiences?
Maybe it helps to focus on narrower questions like: Do you feel like the current winner-take-all allocation in most states or proportional allocation as used in Nebraska and Maine either uphold or undermine the values you're describing here?
> ...it's an agreement that was reached between states who were giving up their sovereignty to join together. If we discard compromises like that because people who won the popular vote by a tiny margin now think it's outdated and that they have some democratic mandate, then collectively society has lost my trust to keep it's word on future compromises wherein I'm asked to forfeit some of my independence and sovereignty.
This feels a little unfair...
1. States made a compromise of some sovereignty to join, but the compromise was very much about protecting significant parts of that sovereignty. The states, quite pointedly, retain the sovereignty to modify the compromise. If the electoral college is discarded, it will be because states exercised their sovereignty, via this process, to do so.
2. Following the above, minus a few stipulations, each state legislature retains broad power regarding how their electors are selected and what they are expected to do. Something like the Fair Vote proposal entails exercising this sovereignty.
Legislators can change that through legislation. They're not supposed to sabotage the accuracy of the census.
People have built-in game theory enough to be highly sensitive to others trying to set up unequal enforcement.
When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically.
Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue.
I am not saying you can’t play the game. It’s a terrible idea to split your states votes while the electoral collage is in it’s current form. Acknowledging this is how things are, and we should come up with a better solution is fine. Fighting each issue separately isn’t.
> Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue.
Only in the 21st century do voting issues only become political when they can be looked at in terms of race.
"Political" means about the process of governance, not "when minorities or women have a complaint."
However, this idea that districts should be advantageous to some group is inherently corrosive to the idea of democracy. You can’t have your cake and eat it to, either districts need to be arbitrary lines drawn without political influence or your just deciding what influences are allowed.
PS: Packing means these districts can also be used to hurt democrats by creating a single district with extreme bias you can create several safe districts which would otherwise be contested.
Precisely one party is proposing laws and suits that push in this direction.
Of course congressional representation for DC is a political issue. Framing this as an issue of democracy doesn't tell the whole story. DC is a federal district and by design has no representation in Congress. This was a political decision.
Congressional action to grant DC statehood outright has no precedent and seemingly goes against the constitution. If residents of DC want the same congressional representation as states, then retrocession to return parts of DC to Maryland or Virginia is the main constitutionally viable option - this has been done before. Congress granting DC statehood outright would be a misuse of their power. This whole thing is rife with politics.
Playing the hypothetical harm issue is kind of laughing in the face of democracy as an idea. They don’t even have final say in local laws.
And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side. That's the issue. One side is now against census so people aren't represented, restricting voting so people don't get a say, and people keep saying 'both sides'.