The Democrats should now re-district the House for Republican oblivion.

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: techs
The Dems gained both houses of state government in a record tying 15 states.
Remember that Texas re-districting mid-census and the Supreme Court decided this was legal and it was also legal to gerrymander districts for any reason that isn't racial.
So now it is legal to re-district completely based on voter history, etc.
I think the Dems now have political capital. And they should spend by doing what the Repubicans started in 1990 and continued thru Texas. Which is use the new combination of computing power and storage plus the huge databases of American citizens that contain everything down to the shampoo they prefer, to re-district.
The Dems can now force the Republicans into the same situation the Repubs did to them. Gerrymander the House so it takes a HUGE majority of votes for one party to overcome the gerrymandering.
This will ensure the Repubicans have no chance of re-gaining the House in 2008.

You bitch when Republicans do it, and then when Democrats take control you advocate the exact same thing. Yeah, Democrats are bringing real change.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
We need election reform to simplify the will of the people translating to actual representation.

For President, the popular vote should be all that is counted.

For State offices, the total vote for that state should be all that is counted.

Reciepts for all votes in duplicate, that are handed to two independent tabulatory agencies.

We have gone over this a few times... The top 25 cities in this country hold nearly half the population of the country.

You could run for President by just spending time in this 25 cities. The rest of American would be left out totally.
Not a good idea.

BTW: the computer idea sounds good. Would make a great study project for some computer and poli-sci major.

Let's wait until we see national vote totals. In 2004 Republicans got 49% of all votes cast for congress, the Dems 46% a 2.5% difference.
The house ended up being split 53% Rep and 46% Dem. So basicly the Dems got the number of seats matching their vote total and the Republicans got their vote total plus all the other 3rd parties.

Based on the actually national vote tallies I think the house was split pretty fairly.
Let's see how close the new congress matches the national vote total.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: techs
The Dems gained both houses of state government in a record tying 15 states.
Remember that Texas re-districting mid-census and the Supreme Court decided this was legal and it was also legal to gerrymander districts for any reason that isn't racial.
So now it is legal to re-district completely based on voter history, etc.
I think the Dems now have political capital. And they should spend by doing what the Repubicans started in 1990 and continued thru Texas. Which is use the new combination of computing power and storage plus the huge databases of American citizens that contain everything down to the shampoo they prefer, to re-district.
The Dems can now force the Republicans into the same situation the Repubs did to them. Gerrymander the House so it takes a HUGE majority of votes for one party to overcome the gerrymandering.
This will ensure the Repubicans have no chance of re-gaining the House in 2008.

You bitch when Republicans do it, and then when Democrats take control you advocate the exact same thing. Yeah, Democrats are bringing real change.

Not a surprise. I got him to admit in another thread that his moral compass is situationally conditional.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's a Texas problem, not Pelosi's. If Texas Democrats want to redistrict Republicans into the oblivion, they should do it. There are consequences to losing elections.

Except that Republicans dominate Texas perhaps more than any other state.

I disagree with the thread premise btw, I am *extremely* dissatisfied with Republicans overall, and elated at the Democratic power shift, but I don't think punishing Republicans outright is the right thing to do. Better to work together if possible to alleviate this kind of partisan hackery in the future. Which is why I posted this earlier :

We need election reform to simplify the will of the people translating to actual representation.

For President, the popular vote should be all that is counted.

For State offices, the total vote for that state should be all that is counted.

Reciepts for all votes in duplicate, that are handed to two independent tabulatory agencies.

No more districts, no more districting problems. Not to mention less hassles overall. Your vote counts, even if you are stuck in an area dominated by the other party's supporters. Right now, literally millions of votes are disregarded entirely simply because the other side has a majority in their district.

Dems picked up five seats in the Texas House. No more House Speaker Tom Craddick, hes not going to have the votes to be speaker again. Its to bad we couldnt get rid of Perry too.

 

[Craig234]

We have gone over this a few times... The top 25 cities in this country hold nearly half the population of the country.

You could run for President by just spending time in this 25 cities. The rest of American would be left out totally.
Not a good idea.

Wrong. Campaigning in 25 cities does not give you 100% of the vote in those 25 cities.

"One man, one vote".

Why should you get less than one vote if you live in a city and more than one vote if you live in the countryside?

Why don't we make other artificial groups for the electoral system - so really short people are overrepresented in the vote while average height are not, etc.?

The electoral system is an ongoing violation of democracy, carrying on a compromise made for a 215 year old horse trade.

It's an outrage under democracy for several hundred thousand citizens in a low-population state to get as much say in the Senate as 35 million Californians.

 

[Infohawk]

It will never happen, but the Dems should push proportional representation. It would avoid neocons coming back into power AND it would be equitable.

 

[imported_Seer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

We have gone over this a few times... The top 25 cities in this country hold nearly half the population of the country.

You could run for President by just spending time in this 25 cities. The rest of American would be left out totally.
Not a good idea.

Wrong. Campaigning in 25 cities does not give you 100% of the vote in those 25 cities.

"One man, one vote".

Why should you get less than one vote if you live in a city and more than one vote if you live in the countryside?

Why don't we make other artificial groups for the electoral system - so really short people are overrepresented in the vote while average height are not, etc.?

The electoral system is an ongoing violation of democracy, carrying on a compromise made for a 215 year old horse trade.

It's an outrage under democracy for several hundred thousand citizens in a low-population state to get as much say in the Senate as 35 million Californians.

um, the house is there to represent the rights of the people as being equal, and the seante for the rights of the states as being equal. Personally, I would much rather trust the senate. Why you would want to cahnge the senate so, I can't say...we would just have two houses. One house is already bad enough.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Oh good, so instead of Republicans we'll have Democrats that ACT just like Republicans. Got to love change!

Of course I DO think some redistricting is in order, but only to undo a lot of the BS that has been going on for a while now. I would like to see either a bipartisan plan OR a neutral third party plan...

Many become the corrupt authoritarian dictator they seek to depose. This is just a prime example of that.