"The Supreme Court’s attacks on voting rights are about rigging elections for Republicans," said Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
A computer program can be biased, if the software developers who write it are biased.
Also, a six year term on SC Justices would mean that any time there’s a two-term president, by the end of the second term, literally every single SC Justice would have been selected by the same president. That’s a terrible idea.
A 10-year term at least guarantees that there’s a different president in office when one is up for reappointment, and they can be staggered to avoid appointing all at once. But even that’s not so great of an idea, because it would be too volatile. Every time a new president comes in, he would get rid of all or most of his predecessor’s appointments. That wouldn’t restore non-partisanship to the courts, it would make things worse.
Maybe if we’re voting on instance admins, but certainly not for drawing congressional district maps.
Humans can use digital tools to programmatically parse data and run statistical analysis and do whatever else they need to make fully informed decisions, but ultimately it should be humans making those decisions, not a computer.
And before you ask, yes, they should be redrawn by independent redistricting commissions, not state legislatures.
Digital tooling is fine, “autonomous” systems are not.
The winning computer program would be subject to peer-review. This would spot biases.
Yes, 6-year terms are too short. The article suggests 18-year terms. That could very well be the optimum number, but that is a long time for a bad justice to be serving. I would have mathematicians look for the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority of justices. They would be allowed to adjust the number of justices.
A computer program can be biased, if the software developers who write it are biased.
Also, a six year term on SC Justices would mean that any time there’s a two-term president, by the end of the second term, literally every single SC Justice would have been selected by the same president. That’s a terrible idea.
A 10-year term at least guarantees that there’s a different president in office when one is up for reappointment, and they can be staggered to avoid appointing all at once. But even that’s not so great of an idea, because it would be too volatile. Every time a new president comes in, he would get rid of all or most of his predecessor’s appointments. That wouldn’t restore non-partisanship to the courts, it would make things worse.
Open source the program?
Maybe if we’re voting on instance admins, but certainly not for drawing congressional district maps.
Humans can use digital tools to programmatically parse data and run statistical analysis and do whatever else they need to make fully informed decisions, but ultimately it should be humans making those decisions, not a computer.
And before you ask, yes, they should be redrawn by independent redistricting commissions, not state legislatures.
Digital tooling is fine, “autonomous” systems are not.
The winning computer program would be subject to peer-review. This would spot biases.
Yes, 6-year terms are too short. The article suggests 18-year terms. That could very well be the optimum number, but that is a long time for a bad justice to be serving. I would have mathematicians look for the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority of justices. They would be allowed to adjust the number of justices.