Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 559

Thread: Gerrymandering

  1. #481
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I think DC should just be a city that runs itself away from congress. It doesn't need to be a state to do that.

    PR should be a state.
    Dc isn’t run by itself as it is now.

    But ideally the residential portions would at least be absorbed by Maryland/Virginia. However, Dems would be stupid to not push for statehood there as well, and there is just as well an argument for then for against.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,654
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    Dc isn’t run by itself as it is now.

    But ideally the residential portions would at least be absorbed by Maryland/Virginia. However, Dems would be stupid to not push for statehood there as well, and there is just as well an argument for then for against.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I know it's not, congress runs it, so of course it's broken.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,654
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    Sure, why not?
    James Madison said the Senate was "first to protect the people against their rulers and secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

    The purpose is to balance out, a little, the movement of populations (since that is what the house is supposed to do).

    The only issue appears to be that the popular vote and the electoral college vote didn't match a few times ... scrapping some fundamental aspects of our government to "fix" something that isn't broken in the constitution seems extreme to me.

    I've lived in states with few representatives and states with a huge number of reps, I can definitely see the merit in trying to maintain a slight balance between the states, and the merits of letting the states govern themselves as much as possible. The result is better for everyone in the long run.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    Would you like some cheese with that whine?

    You seem to have no issue with the underhanded tactics that the republicans use in the name of the constitution.

    These are merely fighting back within the realms of the constitution the help bring the balance of the power back to the majority.

    If you don’t like it, blame the constitution for not anticipating this. Remember, the greatest governmental document in history.

    I welcome bipartisan fair changes to the system to make it better. However I’m also not disillusioned as scoots was in thinking that there are fair actors on both sides interested in that (I.e. see the Supreme Court on gerrymandering and how that all played out).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Would you like to remove the blinders that give you tunnel vision?

    I've said numerous time in these forums that both sides are equally guilty of legal shenanigans. The reps seem to gerrymander more than the dems…but the dems would probably do it just as much if they could.

    The dems are absurd with their attempts to harvest votes through no voter ID and allowing open borders.

    Bottom line here is that both sides are guilty in their own ways. The only reason why you hear so much about this crap now is because there is an outsider in the WH and the career politicians can't deal with it…primarily the dems.

    Point about gerrymandering…the reason why parties get away with it is the vast majority do not even know what it is. Stand on the corner and ask 10 people what gerrymandering is and I'd be surprised if three people knew…yet, all ten have a vote.

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,654
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    I agree, though electoral college does add two voters for senators so it is possible it would still not match up but would be far less likely. And would be a much more fair system that would be reflective of the popular will. Would love to see it, won’t hold my breath though, as those whom this system benefits are not incentivized to change to a more fair system.
    "Fair" is a fiction.

    And if the states apportioned it based on district votes it never would have been close to having the popular vote winner not win.

    It won't change because both sides don't want it to change, they just want to talk about it and make people argue.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,654
    How about only allowing a vote to people who have at least 1 year of civic service? Demonstrate some level of commitment.

    Certainly would make gerrymandering and voter id moot.

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    "Fair" is a fiction.

    And if the states apportioned it based on district votes it never would have been close to having the popular vote winner not win.

    It won't change because both sides don't want it to change, they just want to talk about it and make people argue.
    That’s not true. I guarantee you that if there was a constitutional amendment binding all states to accepting that practice the Dem ones would accept it in a second. It would be more fair and it would be advantageous to them as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Would you like to remove the blinders that give you tunnel vision?

    I've said numerous time in these forums that both sides are equally guilty of legal shenanigans. The reps seem to gerrymander more than the dems…but the dems would probably do it just as much if they could.

    The dems are absurd with their attempts to harvest votes through no voter ID and allowing open borders.

    Bottom line here is that both sides are guilty in their own ways. The only reason why you hear so much about this crap now is because there is an outsider in the WH and the career politicians can't deal with it…primarily the dems.

    Point about gerrymandering…the reason why parties get away with it is the vast majority do not even know what it is. Stand on the corner and ask 10 people what gerrymandering is and I'd be surprised if three people knew…yet, all ten have a vote.
    Then why bring up the Supreme Court in your spiel? Republicans used underhanded tactics to maintain their majority on it that is technically within the constitution. Yet you blame that as liberal crying and now saying it needs to be changed. Never mind republicans were talking about leaving 8 on the court if Hillary was elected so that the balance wouldn’t change.

    I know you are reasonable on gerrymandering as a whole, but you have blinders on the motives about many of the other actions that republicans take and then ignore the minutia and details they use in order to take advantage of a situation. Willful or not, you do still have some blinders there.

    I’d be all for fair solutions and are with you on many of them in theory, but in practicality i know to achieve more equitable solutions, what I listed is what dems should aim to do. In order to achieve meaningful changes, the party that wants it needs the appropriate leverage to achieve those changes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    "Fair" is a fiction.

    And if the states apportioned it based on district votes it never would have been close to having the popular vote winner not win.

    It won't change because both sides don't want it to change, they just want to talk about it and make people argue.
    I said more fair. And it’s not exactly a fiction to achieve something that is more fair.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    James Madison said the Senate was "first to protect the people against their rulers and secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."
    And he’s been dead a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The only issue appears to be that the popular vote and the electoral college vote didn't match a few times ... scrapping some fundamental aspects of our government to "fix" something that isn't broken in the constitution seems extreme to me.
    In terms of democracy, that is not the only issue. Given current trends, it is conceivable that a majority in the Senate (51 Senators) could represent 16.7% of the total US population. The Senate, the Electoral College as a winner-take-all proposition, and the process of ratifying an amendment to the Constitution are all way out of whack with the demographics of this country.

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Sonoma Beach
    Posts
    7,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Explain it to them. We are a country of states and we have some rules that tilt the government a bit toward the states and away from just the people as a whole. If the states assigned electoral college votes proportionally then the popular vote and the electoral college vote would have never not matched up, and that is a state's right. Right now only 2 states do that. Also if the house of representatives grew as set out in the constitution then the popular vote and electoral college vote would have never mismatched. The issue isn't the system it's that congress and the states are not following the best practices but instead are essentially gerrymandering the electoral college votes.
    LOL. Hence the title of the thread. People are thinking about States rights. This is a national vote. Thing nationally. Other a lot of countries don't treat national elections this way. State system to me is redundant. In my old line of work, redundancy killed people. It's about state's rights and in a national election it shouldn't matter.

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,654
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    That’s not true. I guarantee you that if there was a constitutional amendment binding all states to accepting that practice the Dem ones would accept it in a second. It would be more fair and it would be advantageous to them as well.
    What's not true? The Dems could change CA right now but they don't want to. You proposed a different hypothetical to say what I said was untrue.

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    What's not true? The Dems could change CA right now but they don't want to. You proposed a different hypothetical to say what I said was untrue.
    You’re saying both sides don’t want it to change. That’s not true.

    But Dems of course would not make a change to the states they control so that republicans could account for their states in a way that would guarantee they won every time.

    Asking CA to change without other states changing at the same time is crazy and would only further make the disparity of the public wishes versus the results even more disparate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Sonoma Beach
    Posts
    7,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    What are the odds we are still talking about this three years later?

    Pretty good, I guess.

    To reiterate…the electoral system is provided for in our Constitution. If enough people don't like it, we can amend the constitution.

    And how come we never hear about changing the electoral system when the dems win. Even though the one with the most votes won, the electoral system as it is now discourages people to stay home in certain areas (e.g. repubs in NY and CA). So how come the dems never want to change the system…you know, so it can be 100% fair?
    And emending the constitution is an easy thing. I'm not making this a party thing. Both sides have had two elections when the winner of the election has lost the popular vote. Sometimes simplifying things is the best way.

    I'll give you an example. Special Operations was a bunch of separate entities in the four major Armed Forces with their own infrastructure and communication. Kind of like States. It was very inefficient and some of the jargon was different between different branches of the military. I combined them in JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) and streamlined the communication, jargon, and infrastructure. Much more efficient and no more issues of each branch claiming that they have a say in a certain operation. One group doing the work. This is the best example I can give. Sorry.

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,654
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    I said more fair. And it’s not exactly a fiction to achieve something that is more fair.
    I don't know, someone always feels hard done by.

Page 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •