Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

So let me get this straight...

63 posts in this topic

Posted

oh so you would like to move further from some sense of democracy and encourage even more incredibly gerrymandered districts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

oh so you would like to move further from some sense of democracy and encourage even more incredibly gerrymandered districts?

Versus winner take-all states? Yes.

Want to make campaigns more receptive to all americans and not those in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc?

Make individual congressional districts the battlefields. When a liberal democrat has to fight tooth and nail for a lone congressional district in California or a republican has to lock up a district like McIntyre district...that's a good thing.

Since when has gerrymandering been a bad thing? When one side feels slighted? As long as the districts are not gerrymandered based on gender, age, race, religous belief...so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Want to make campaigns more receptive to all americans and not those in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc?

Make individual congressional districts the battlefields.

hahaha objectively wrong

want to actually make campaigns more receptive to all americans? go to a popular vote

When a liberal democrat has to fight tooth and nail for a lone congressional district in California or a republican has to lock up a district like McIntyre district...that's a good thing.

lol no "a good thing" would be equal representation. the democratic house candidates took 49.15% of the vote in the house, with republicans taking 48.03%. however, the 113th house will be 46.2% democratic and 53.8% republican. this is problematic, provided you're not an authoritarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

America voted to keep the status quo, so they deserve every bite of this sh#t sandwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

hahaha objectively wrong

want to actually make campaigns more receptive to all americans? go to a popular vote

Popular vote is assinine as it would be worse than what we have now and just cater to population centers. What's good for Newark, NJ isn't necessarily good for BFE, Idaho.

lol no "a good thing" would be equal representation. the democratic house candidates took 49.15% of the vote in the house, with republicans taking 48.03%. however, the 113th house will be 46.2% democratic and 53.8% republican. this is problematic, provided you're not an authoritarian

States choose their representation through districting. Feds stepped in and tried/succeeded in controlling that in the south. You have a problem with redistricting altogether? How do you propose it's done. It's the United States...not the united state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Popular vote is assinine as it would be worse than what we have now and just cater to population centers. What's good for Newark, NJ isn't necessarily good for BFE, Idaho.

cater? how is numerically fair representation catering to anyone? wouldn't anything other than that be catering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

cater? how is numerically fair representation catering to anyone? wouldn't anything other than that be catering?

There's a reason we have the Senate. Why did the framers give numerically unfair representation to small states?

http://www.congresslink.org/print_expert_tenthingssenate.htm

As decided by the Great Compromise of 1787, each state is represented by two senators; therefore each state has an equal voice in the Senate. In the House, large states enjoy a numerical advantage in representation, but in the Senate every state—large or small—has equal representation.

In creating the Senate, the framers were careful to provide a safeguard against majority rule. Giving the small state of Delaware the same voting power as the large state of Virginia, for example, provided protection for the voice of the minority.

Knowing this is crucial to understanding the framers’ design for the Senate, but of equal importance is the number itself. Why two senators? Why not three or four per state? The framers wanted the Senate always to be a comparatively smaller body than the House. This smaller size has allowed the Senate to maintain its more deliberative nature and to persist in its tradition of unlimited debate, including the use of the filibuster, long after the House abolished that privilege in its chamber. Having a smaller body has allowed for flexibility in Senate rules and procedures, and has accommodated the need for secrecy in deliberations on sensitive matters, such as foreign policy.

Having a smaller body has meant that each member’s voice can be heard.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison commented that one of the problems to be solved by a new government was “that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an overbearing majority.”

As part of the solution, the framers designed a small, deliberative Senate where even a minority of one must be heard.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There's a reason we have the Senate. Why did the framers give numerically unfair representation to small states?

http://www.congressl...hingssenate.htm

now can you bring that around to your opposition to a popular vote?

(honestly i fail to see how a popular vote would cater to urban areas anyway, if anything it seems like it would do the opposite.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The electoral college system is a relic from before instantaneous cross country electronic communication. It has no place here today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This would all be solved by increasing economic growth by 1 point long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

that's what happens when they've gerrymandered themselves into untouchable positions...

you might have seen the same thing i did on Meet the Press when Tom Brokaw casually tossed out a stat that 75% of those in Congress were from gerrymandered districts. and my jaw dropped.

he just more or less said we are cooked because of this. and i tend to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you might have seen the same thing i did on Meet the Press when Tom Brokaw casually tossed out a stat that 75% of those in Congress were from gerrymandered districts. and my jaw dropped.

he just more or less said we are cooked because of this. and i tend to agree.

must've missed that, i was barely paying attention to meet the press this week... i was reading about it in a politico article. but, agreed... it's quite bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites