andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker

Date: 2018-02-08 01:08 pm (UTC)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)
From: [personal profile] momentsmusicaux
> Typically these are wood-frame construction, cheaper to build than luxury steel-and-glass high-rises.

I can never get over how in the US they build houses and blocks of flats OUT OF WOOD.

Date: 2018-02-08 01:49 pm (UTC)
calimac: (Default)
From: [personal profile] calimac
What would you use, brick or stone? Wood (or, for that matter, steel) is far easier to make safe from earthquakes, a major concern in parts of the US.

Date: 2018-02-08 02:08 pm (UTC)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)
From: [personal profile] momentsmusicaux
Wood just seems wrong for houses. It's a cultural thing, I suppose. Houses here aren't made of wood, sheds are!
I'd feel terribly insecure in a wooden house. I don't think I'd knowingly want to live in a multi-storey wooden structure!

Date: 2018-02-08 01:14 pm (UTC)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)
From: [personal profile] momentsmusicaux
Where is that robot car park? The articles all say Morrison Street, but where on it?

Date: 2018-02-08 01:43 pm (UTC)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)
From: [personal profile] momentsmusicaux
My best guess is that it's to the right of the coop supermarket and the left of the shops that include the gaming cafe.

Date: 2018-02-08 01:49 pm (UTC)
zotz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] zotz
I think it's the back of one of the buildings across the road from Scottish Widows. That's pretty much where you're saying too, isn't it?

Date: 2018-02-08 01:42 pm (UTC)
calimac: (Default)
From: [personal profile] calimac
No, I don't think PR is really a solution in the US. There's differences which make it less feasible than in the UK, and one point which suggests to me that blaming it all on gerrymandering is a misanalysis.

1) Compared to the UK, the US is a much larger country with a smaller legislature. Our congressional districts are already 7 to 8 times the population of an average British parliamentary constituency, so the problem of distance from the constituents, already an argument against amalgamating constituencies into multi-member districts for PR, is far greater.

2) The US only has two political parties worth noting. In the UK, it's frequent for seats to be won without an absolute majority (i.e. less than 50% of the FPTP vote). In the US, it's very rare. The result is that the threshold for minority representation in a PR system is higher, exacerbating the problem of constituency size.

3) While gerrymandering is a real problem, I'm skeptical when the evidence for increased Republican adeptness at it is that Republicans keep getting elected despite the voters being more Democratic. The same election problem applies to governors and senators, and they're elected not by districts but by states. State borders don't change. They can't be gerrymandered. Whatever's causing this, it's more deep-set than gerrymandering alone.

Date: 2018-02-08 02:07 pm (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I think Duverger's Law has an impact on the duopoly situation in US party representation. Along with the primary system and the internal caucussing. I think this gives a tendency towards large, rather sprawling coalitions. Party funding might also have an influence.

The point about PR and distance from the electorate is interesting. How much of the role of a glorified social worker do Federal Representative's have to take on? How easy is it for them to take the temperature on particular issues from their consituents is it without having to go round and door knock on every house?

Rather than using STV which relies on multi-member constituencies you could use the Additional Member System using each state as the top-up region. The single-member constituencies would grow a little but not vastly and the US already seems okay with Senators representing a whole state.

Perhaps the real difference that some form of PR would make would be if it were common at local and state levels and therefore allow smaller parties and political coalitions to get some practical influence on policy build up sufficient support to gain seats in the House, or at least threaten to. That's perhaps nearly as valuable. UKIP has been a very successful political party without winning a single seat at a UK general election in about twenty years.

Nate Silver's outfit have been writing a lot about gerrymandering in the US but, sadly, I've not had the time to read most of it.

Date: 2018-02-08 04:58 pm (UTC)
calimac: (Default)
From: [personal profile] calimac
Just as I don't think gerrymandering fully explains Republican electoral dominance, I don't think Duverger's Law fully explains the US party duopoly. The UK and Canada are as much single-member FPTP countries as the US is, but they have multi-party systems. I think differences in social structure, and the presence of an elected federal executive officer, are more responsible for the set-up and maintenance of a two-party duopoly in the US.

You ask how the US handles constituency surgeries. Differently. Because of the size of our districts, all Congressfolk have very large staffs, with established district offices (often several, in geographically large districts) as well as in Washington. They handle the constituent interface. Personal interactions with Congressfolk take place mostly at large open public meetings, usually known as Town Halls (after the name of the traditional public business forums in New England). You may have read of various Republicans hastily cancelling these after being shouted down at them by angry constituents.

In California, where the state legislative districts are about the same size as our federal congressional districts, the legislators handle things the same way. It's probably different in other states with smaller legislative districts. And you're right, PR might work best at the state level in those states. (There are a few cities trying it for municipal elections.)

You suggest that an AMS wouldn't increase the size of the individual-member districts very much. I'm not so sure. In the Bundestag, 50% of the members are top-offs; at Holyrood, it's about 43%. That would mean, without increasing the membership of Congress, approximately doubling the size of our already enormous districts.

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     1 2 3
45 678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 7th, 2026 09:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios