Anyway to eliminate the far right nutbags?

[Jaskalas]

So you'd split the big cities, possibly turning 1 blue district into 4 blue districts. That's a terrible mess, we need a new system for Congress.

Return the Senate back to State nomination. No direct election for them, gets campaign money out of the way.
Reform the House to have State wide "districts".

You get a branch that does not need campaign money, and another branch that cannot be gerrymandered. Win / Win?

 

[nehalem256]

As for geographic distribution, I already mentioned that. The idea that the party that wins 51% of the vote getting 30% of the House members is an accurate representation of that state is absurd on its face and you know it.

Let us imagine a hypothetical state called Squareslavnia with 4 house seats. It is a square with a completely uniform population density. For such a state the most logical method of dist would be to divide it into 4 equal squares.

One square has 90% Democrats and 10% Republicans. The other four squares are 60-40 Republican.

In this state Democrats would get 52.5% of the vote, but only 25% of the house seats. Yet no gerrymandering was taking place.

Why don't you just have the balls to come out and say that what you really want is for house seats to be determined by a nationwide popular vote since that appears to be the only way you would be happy with the results.

 

[nehalem256]

So you'd split the big cities, possibly turning 1 blue district into 4 blue districts. That's a terrible mess, we need a new system for Congress.

Return the Senate back to State nomination. No direct election for them, gets campaign money out of the way.
Reform the House to have State wide "districts".

You get a branch that does not need campaign money, and another branch that cannot be gerrymandered. Win / Win?

So that a state with 51% Democrats gets 100% of the house seats?

 

[fskimospy]

Let us imagine a hypothetical state called Squareslavnia with 4 house seats. It is a square with a completely uniform population density. For such a state the most logical method of dist would be to divide it into 4 equal squares.

One square has 90% Democrats and 10% Republicans. The other four squares are 60-40 Republican.

In this state Democrats would get 52.5% of the vote, but only 25% of the house seats. Yet no gerrymandering was taking place.

Why don't you just have the balls to come out and say that what you really want is for house seats to be determined by a nationwide popular vote since that appears to be the only way you would be happy with the results.

Uhmm, I have said that in the past, you clown. lol.

Regardless, your point has already been addressed. No one is saying that geography doesn't play a part, it's just that geography alone does not explain the disparity. I'm not sure how you don't understand that.

 

[nehalem256]

Uhmm, I have said that in the past, you clown. lol.

Regardless, your point has already been addressed. No one is saying that geography doesn't play a part, it's just that geography alone does not explain the disparity. I'm not sure how you don't understand that.

actually it does explain a lot

The state has 4 urban areas that are roughly 90% Democratic. (Philly, Pitt, Scranton and Harrisburg/State College)

What you want is the districts in Pennsylvania to carve off the "correct" amount of the countryside to connect to the urban core regions. Sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.

 

[hal2kilo]

Why, they're so entertaining. Kind of like Anarch.
They are such good PR for why you should just look at the Republican party and either schrug or laugh.

 

[Jaskalas]

So that a state with 51% Democrats gets 100% of the house seats?

If you can only vote for one person in a list of candidates, there would be a split among them. Many of the Dem votes would go to the first guy. Republicans could vote for their man, etc.

It shakes things up, and let's admit, the current system has failed. We need something to fix it.

 

[nehalem256]

Consider http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ucts-of-geography-not-voting-rights-act/?_r=0

A variety of academic analyses of redistricting have found that this geographic self-sorting accounts for much — probably most — of the “skew” of Congressional districts against Democrats. Gerrymandering and other partisan efforts at redistricting do play a role, but it is mostly around the margin. A study by John Sides and Eric McGhee found that redistricting after the 2010 Census, which was controlled by Republicans in many key states, produced a net swing of only about seven House seats toward Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

So you'd split the big cities, possibly turning 1 blue district into 4 blue districts. That's a terrible mess, we need a new system for Congress.

Return the Senate back to State nomination. No direct election for them, gets campaign money out of the way.
Reform the House to have State wide "districts".

You get a branch that does not need campaign money, and another branch that cannot be gerrymandered. Win / Win?

I've never heard a convincing argument for returning Senate elections to the state legislatures. I particularly find the idea that doing that would somehow reduce the influence of powerful individuals seems dubious.

As for the House, as it is ostensibly supposed to represent the most immediate will of the people, I think proportional voting would be a big step in the right direction. There's no rational reason I can think of to privilege representation based on geographical location in a state.

 

[fskimospy]

Consider http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ucts-of-geography-not-voting-rights-act/?_r=0

Uhmmm, I'm quite aware of that article and I think I've even linked it in a different thread. Why do you keep linking things that support my position while apparently thinking you are arguing against it?

 

[SaurusX]

Let us imagine <snip>

 

[nehalem256]

Uhmmm, I'm quite aware of that article and I think I've even linked it in a different thread. Why do you keep linking things that support my position while apparently thinking you are arguing against it?

It in no way supports your view. Unless your view is that if Democrats got say 6 instead of 5 seats in Pennsylvania that there would not be gerrymandering.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well we could amend the Constitution and eliminate political parties or change how they are funded so none can dominate financially over others.

Next we will hear from the partisans who will explain why they should be allowed to hold the offices of representatives immune from real choice.

 

[Mxylplyx]

What I don't understand is that when I have driven cross country and been to places that vote Tea Party I have never met these crazy lunatics. Are they in their basements posting on forums and not out in the real world?

It's worth noting that the Democratic party is really lousy too. It's just that the Tea Party has made the Republicans look so absolutely terrible that the Democrats look like brilliant politicians in comparison. They aren't. Our whole political system is corrupt and not serving your best interests.

I wish people would be smart enough to realize what is their best interest.

I live in Alabama. Trust me, they are plentiful. They watch fox news like drones and then act like they are geniuses. Political debate with them is easy, since all you have to do is scan the fox news homepage to see what points they are going to try to make.

 

[fskimospy]

It in no way supports your view. Unless your view is that if Democrats got say 6 instead of 5 seats in Pennsylvania that there would not be gerrymandering.

You are intensely stupid. My position is that the current way of electing house representatives does not accurately represent the will of the voters in that state, due to both geographic differences and gerrymandering. Just because one of the two is not intentional doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

It's not just what I've said in this thread, it's what I've said in numerous threads about this, some of which I'm pretty confident you participated in.

 

[nehalem256]

You are intensely stupid. My position is that the current way of electing house representatives does not accurately represent the will of the voters in that state, due to both geographic differences and gerrymandering. Just because one of the two is not intentional doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

It's not just what I've said in this thread, it's what I've said in numerous threads about this, some of which I'm pretty confident you participated in.

So then as I said:

Why don't you just have the balls to come out and say that what you really want is for house seats to be determined by a nationwide popular vote since that appears to be the only way you would be happy with the results.

 

[fskimospy]

So then as I said:

Are you arguing just to argue now? As I said before, I have already said I supported that in the past.

So that should settle that. Way to crap your pants in another thread, lol.

 

[Phokus]

Isn't "eliminate" just a synonym for killing? You have a political movement you disagree with and you want to murder them?

Sure, that's one way to interpret it, if you're an illiterate rightwing nutjob who, in your case, can't tell the difference between an onion style parody and a real news story

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eliminate?s=t


e·lim·i·nate
[ih-lim-uh-neyt]

to remove or get rid of, especially as being in some way undesirable: to eliminate risks; to eliminate hunger

 

[poofyhairguy]

You are intensely stupid. My position is that the current way of electing house representatives does not accurately represent the will of the voters in that state, due to both geographic differences and gerrymandering.

No fuck that. The end result would be urban areas would dominate politics and suburban and rural areas get the shaft.

If we are going to "fix" the system lets just make it so only landowners can vote again. Then all those urban renters couldn't vote their way into entitlements, and rural and suburban voters (who are more likely per capita to own land) will have a bigger say in the government.

See? The shoe sucks if someone shoves it on your foot.

 

[fskimospy]

No fuck that. The end result would be urban areas would dominate politics and suburban and rural areas get the shaft.

If we are going to "fix" the system lets just make it so only landowners can vote again. Then all those urban renters couldn't vote their way into entitlements, and rural and suburban voters (who are more likely per capita to own land) will have a bigger say in the government.

See? The shoe sucks if someone shoves it on your foot.

So wait, your complaint is that the places where all the people live would have more influence in a democracy? Uhmmm... duh.

Rural areas are already handed preferential treatment in the Senate and the Electoral College. What is your rationale for preferential treatment in the House as well? Can you be specific on the merits as to why you think a voter in a rural area should have more effective representation than an urban voter?

 

[First]

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

47.15% for Romney. Out of business? Talk about delusional.

4%+, 5M vote margin and 61% of the electoral vote with a very mediocre economy and the most centrist candidate they could fine is, effectively, out of business. Yes. At least in modern politics of the last 20 years.

 

[Screech]

I like how the terms 'far left' and 'far right' as discussed in contemporary american politics have basically nothing to do with the historic meaning of 'far left' and 'far right', lol.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is something of a pickle, if you ask me. We have one group, liberals who can be reached by reason and science, and conservatives who cannot. Both sides can buy into some fanatical beliefs but only one side can ever be reasoned out of it. Thus, although we can have two different groups that pose dangers, for one side the condition can become permanent. The lunatic fringe in this group just voted to send the US into economic tailspin because they are worried we will go broke. This is like drinking poison because you fear food. We don't allow the insane to run around town with guns. We lock them up and pump them full of drugs. We are a humane society, no. Thank God for bleeding heart liberals. The Spanish Inquisition was conservative inspiration.

 

[Mxylplyx]

So wait, your complaint is that the places where all the people live would have more influence in a democracy? Uhmmm... duh.

Rural areas are already handed preferential treatment in the Senate and the Electoral College. What is your rationale for preferential treatment in the House as well? Can you be specific on the merits as to why you think a voter in a rural area should have more effective representation than an urban voter?

Because they love America more...duh. Do you have a giant tattoo of a bald eagle on your chest? Thought not. Hell, you probably even drink some uppity imported beer. Real Americans drink Budweiser.

 

[Uhtrinity]

As to the OPs comment.

I blame right wing talk radio and Fox news for this upsurge of crazy (talk radio supporting the crazies and Fox mostly supporting the mainstream). It was bad enough with Rush Limbaugh, but has gotten worse with Hannity and more recently Glenn Beck.

Beck caters specifically to the tea party and libertarian types and spoon feeds the masses with some of the worst drivel I have ever heard. Add to that Citizens United which allows anonymous big money donors to pump money into these groups. That allows a body to control a whole party when it only makes up 1/5 of that party. I see it only getting worse as "The Blaze" becomes more popular. There is no equivalent machine on the Left.