Discussion How long before a Federal judge strikes down the just signed Florida congressional map?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,307
4,427
136
dank69 said:
Democrats tried to do it because the courts said it was okay when Republicans do it. Rules only apply to Democrats once again. Your takeaway is biased as usual.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm biased and you're not.... :rolleyes:

Nowhere did I say that it was OK for the Republicans to do it.
 
Last edited:
T

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,516
6,947
136
It does seem to me that if neutral maps were drawn up nationwide, the Democrats would end up being the winners in most states.

Just a hunch seeing as if the Repubs have more so relied on gerrymandering and other such disingenuous ploys to win elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and sandorski
dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,295
28,492
136
pcgeek11 said:
Right. I'm biased and you're not.... :rolleyes:

Nowhere did I say that it was OK for the Republicans to do it.
Click to expand...
Sure, but Republicans are doing it and the courts are approving it, while simultaneously rejecting Democrats when they do it. You don't see a problem with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
herm0016

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,393
1,025
126
I would support going back to the original counting on the house. more districts means that more people are directly represented and will have more sway over the person and their positions. is there any group advocating for that change right now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous, cytg111, brycejones and 2 others
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,217
14,900
136
herm0016 said:
I would support going back to the original counting on the house. more districts means that more people are directly represented and will have more sway over the person and their positions. is there any group advocating for that change right now?
Click to expand...

At the federal level? If yes, then I’ve been advocating that for a while now as have others on this board. The people clearly aren’t being represented right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
herm0016

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,393
1,025
126
ivwshane said:
At the federal level? If yes, then I’ve been advocating that for a while now as have others on this board. The people clearly aren’t being represented right now.
Click to expand...

what ! have heard a lot here is making the senate proportional and getting rid of the EC, and I will never support that.
a larger house would be more as the system was meant to be though.
 
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,066
23,934
136
herm0016 said:
what ! have heard a lot here is making the senate proportional and getting rid of the EC, and I will never support that.
a larger house would be more as the system was meant to be though.
Click to expand...
Why do you oppose changes to the Senate and the EC?
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,217
14,900
136
herm0016 said:
what ! have heard a lot here is making the senate proportional and getting rid of the EC, and I will never support that.
a larger house would be more as the system was meant to be though.
Click to expand...

I support expanding the house, not the senate. The senate was designed to slow things down. I do however think the filibuster should ended.

I was originally for keeping the EC only because it was supposed to be a backstop to electing someone egregious like trump who is antithetical to democracy and who puts himself before the country. However when that didn’t happen and he didn’t win the popular vote as well, it pretty much ended any reason to keep it. So now I say get rid of it as the people who vote are just one more thing that can be compromised. I’ll take my chances with 140 million voters vs 538 people appointed by political parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous
JTsyo

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,718
877
126
There's no way the Republicans will go for removing the EC. It would result in them not wining the Presidency again. Since it would take an amendment to remove the EC, it's not going to pass without their support. The work around though is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though I can see that being challenged and stuck down by the current SC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawp
dawp

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,345
2,705
136
JTsyo said:
There's no way the Republicans will go for removing the EC. It would result in them not wining the Presidency again. Since it would take an amendment to remove the EC, it's not going to pass without their support. The work around though is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though I can see that being challenged and stuck down by the current SC.
Click to expand...
Maine and Nebraska already have proportional EC delegates, need more

electoralvotemap.com

Which States Split Their Electoral Votes? - Electoral Vote Map

Which states split their electoral votes? Most states allocate electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, but Maine and Nebraska are different.
electoralvotemap.com electoralvotemap.com
 
herm0016

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,393
1,025
126
dawp said:
Maine and Nebraska already have proportional EC delegates, need more

electoralvotemap.com

Which States Split Their Electoral Votes? - Electoral Vote Map

Which states split their electoral votes? Most states allocate electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, but Maine and Nebraska are different.
electoralvotemap.com electoralvotemap.com
Click to expand...

democrats would rather not have this, it opens it up too much to 3rd parties. neither R or D want more than the 2 parties to ever be viable. its a big problem in our system. things like the pres. debate commission for instance. if any other party gets even close, they move the goal posts.

I am for proportional Ec delegates and ranked choice voting.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,217
14,900
136
herm0016 said:
democrats would rather not have this, it opens it up too much to 3rd parties. neither R or D want more than the 2 parties to ever be viable. its a big problem in our system. things like the pres. debate commission for instance. if any other party gets even close, they move the goal posts.

I am for proportional Ec delegates and ranked choice voting.
Click to expand...

I disagree and Bernie sanders says hi.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,217
14,900
136
[DHT]Osiris said:
Silly example, given that Sanders was a one-off independent that had to switch D to be taken seriously.

Ranked choice is the answer.
Click to expand...

I do agree with ranked choice and I’m pretty sure some democratic states are already doing that so again, I disagree that democrats only want two parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous
JTsyo

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,718
877
126
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt, zinfamous and dawp
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom