Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 559

Thread: Gerrymandering

  1. #496
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    And he’s been dead a long time.



    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.
    Lots of very smart people are dead now.

    The complaints about the electoral college are just about the popular vote not always winning was my point.

    I think congress let itself get out of whack. Something they could fix within the constitution.

  2. #497
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,103
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    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.
    Right now, if asked to change Dems would say no, and Reps would say no. If FORCED to change, Dems would most likely do it happily, Reps would fight tooth and nail. The two situations are not the same though.

  3. #498
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,185
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteShadow42 View Post
    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.
    Bolded…you are kidding with this comment. You cannot "emend" the Constitution since it has already been accepted. It can be "amended" and it has been 25 or so times. It is extremely complicated to do not to mention time consuming. (The Equal Rights Amendment is still not ratified as an amendment and that has been going on forever.) You may want to look up what is involved in getting an amendment ratified and added to the Constitution.

    As far as your example goes…there are the four branches of service (five if you include the Coast Guard) that all want the same thing … simple intra branch commication. The military also has superiors that give a command and it gets done. It should not be a big deal to get something changed. The US has 300 million plus people with a seemingly incalculable number of interests and points of view. It is very difficult to get anything done. E.g. say you were able to get both parties to agree to redistrict an entire state…as soon as a minority controlled district was sensibly realigned and a non-minority candidate took over…racism [and this will happen somewhere]). So your example, while impressive, cannot really be applied to realigning the US and amending the Constitution.

  4. #499
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    And if the house maintained the number of representatives based on the constitution then the difference would be much smaller.

    We are a country of 50 states, each state gets a minimum of 3 votes.

    Do you want the Senate to change?
    I'm pro Human, not pro land. I am anti land holding votes.

    My point is that saying small states have too little power is incredibly incorrect
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

  5. #500
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Sonoma Beach
    Posts
    8,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Bolded…you are kidding with this comment. You cannot "emend" the Constitution since it has already been accepted. It can be "amended" and it has been 25 or so times. It is extremely complicated to do not to mention time consuming. (The Equal Rights Amendment is still not ratified as an amendment and that has been going on forever.) You may want to look up what is involved in getting an amendment ratified and added to the Constitution.

    As far as your example goes…there are the four branches of service (five if you include the Coast Guard) that all want the same thing … simple intra branch commication. The military also has superiors that give a command and it gets done. It should not be a big deal to get something changed. The US has 300 million plus people with a seemingly incalculable number of interests and points of view. It is very difficult to get anything done. E.g. say you were able to get both parties to agree to redistrict an entire state…as soon as a minority controlled district was sensibly realigned and a non-minority candidate took over…racism [and this will happen somewhere]). So your example, while impressive, cannot really be applied to realigning the US and amending the Constitution.
    Yes I'm kidding. I was being sarcastic. Sorry bro. You don't know me so it's hard to tell. My bad.

    And regarding the military. It is very hard to get something like that done. Kind of like getting a 2/3 vote in both branches of Congress to change an amendment. Basically most of the high level guys have to be ok with restructuring something like that. It's basically against what the military had designed originally. Kind of like the amendment. By I agree with you, it would be harder to do it.

    Point I'm trying to make is get out of the thought process of boundaries like States and districts. People are too black and white about this notion. People vote and it gets counted. Hopefully accurately.
    This has been brought up by congress members. The problem is that when a certain party has an advantage state wise, they will not put there (at least half of their parties votes) into it. The Republicans (as you have said) would not do it. And rightfully so they shouldn't. The Republicans have in recent times won two elections by losing the popular vote.
    Last edited by WhiteShadow42; 11-19-2019 at 03:54 PM.

  6. #501
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Sonoma Beach
    Posts
    8,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Lots of very smart people are dead now.

    The complaints about the electoral college are just about the popular vote not always winning was my point.

    I think congress let itself get out of whack. Something they could fix within the constitution.
    At least one guys is on my side. lullz.

  7. #502
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,103
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    I'm pro Human, not pro land. I am anti land holding votes.

    My point is that saying small states have too little power is incredibly incorrect
    Did I say they had too little?

  8. #503
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Did I say they had too little?
    yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The small states are WAY underpowered.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

  9. #504
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,103
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    yes
    Okay, I didn't mean too little, just that compared to the big states they have little power. Not too little, just little.

  10. #505
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Right now, if asked to change Dems would say no, and Reps would say no. If FORCED to change, Dems would most likely do it happily, Reps would fight tooth and nail. The two situations are not the same though.
    If there was an agreement put forward that everyone would do this who do you think would be the ones saying no and getting in the way of working together towards this outcome? Have you seen the games played around scotus? Did you see their ruling on gerrymandering?

    People aren't dumb and can see the team game being played. Yes dems do it to in order to maintain power but when it comes to making elections fair in the way you mention it is not the dems in the way. It's republicans/scotus after the games played to keep control.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #506
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,103
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    If there was an agreement put forward that everyone would do this who do you think would be the ones saying no and getting in the way of working together towards this outcome? Have you seen the games played around scotus? Did you see their ruling on gerrymandering?

    People aren't dumb and can see the team game being played. Yes dems do it to in order to maintain power but when it comes to making elections fair in the way you mention it is not the dems in the way. It's republicans/scotus after the games played to keep control.
    Did you read what you replied to? Your first paragraph is saying the same thing I said in my post you replied to.

    And yes, the dems and the reps are both in the way because any state can change at any time.

  12. #507
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,103
    If you want to see Dems trying to "cheat" the system take a look at the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's a plan to get around the electoral college by getting states to assign their electoral college votes regardless of how the state's people vote.

    Anyone who says it's only one side who is trying to twist things hasn't been paying close enough attention.

  13. #508
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    73,021
    What impact has the NPVIC had on this country?
    Hello there! Welcome to ManRam v8.00.
    Patch notes: This version is nice, funny, cool & good™ now

  14. #509
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    43,217
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    What impact has the NPVIC had on this country?
    Are you talking about that Canadian cult the girl from Smallville was in?
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  15. #510
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    If you want to see Dems trying to "cheat" the system take a look at the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's a plan to get around the electoral college by getting states to assign their electoral college votes regardless of how the state's people vote.

    Anyone who says it's only one side who is trying to twist things hasn't been paying close enough attention.
    Is that really what it says?

Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... 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
  •