alt Hacker News> The integrity of U.S. statistical data is under threat from shrinking agency budgets, low response rates to government surveys, and political interference.
Just as both "sides" are upset about gerrymandering, yet neither "side" makes any proposal for an apolitical fair approach for redistricting...
So too with this debate. Haven't we heard the exact same arguments made, by the other "side"? I thought we weren't supposed to have flaming political bait on HN?
The solution to all of these problems is at hand, and we are the ones to build it. Let's just build.
Replies
Why is there always a both sides-er in these discussions?
FWIW, one party generally deferred to nonpartisan commissions to draw boundaries to avoid gerrymandering. So one “side” did far more than propose a solution, they did the right thing even when the other side wasn’t.
Gerrymandering is the worst example to pick when you’re pushing both-sides-bad.
> yet neither "side" makes any proposal for an apolitical fair approach for redistricting...
Last week there was mention here of a proposal to fix the apportionment of House seats so that they are not capped at 435.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47332108
This proposal would make gerrymandering much harder.
[dead]
There is a valid both sides argument to a lot of these issues IMO, but where the discussion ought to be is at how extreme “one” side has taken it.
Whether it’s executive orders, corruption, pardons, appointments, obstruction, gerrymandering. pedophilia, lying, etc. I don’t think there’s a valid defence of just how far one particular side has gone (and proactively I might add).