Remember, if there is any seat that appears to be a safe one, term limits wouldn’t help. The Republican/Democrat probably keeps winning because the district is majority-Pub/Dem, that’s all, and changing the candidate won’t change the party’s lock on the district.
Please check your elementary civics. U.S. Senate “districts” cannot be gerrymandered, and that’s what we were talking about. The topic is Representatives … Representatives … not Senators.
The advantages of my proposal, if they were unclear, are
- benefit Representatives with broad voter appeal;
- benefit the victims of gerrymandering, single-party districts designed to produce several districts for the other party.
Look at it this way: even if you believe every single person in Congress sucks, at most, you get to vote against two of them. Congress’ approval ratings tend to be low, but you don’t vote to re-elect Congress as a whole.
Although both sides do draw districts to their own advantage. It was just that the Republicans were in a better position to take advantage of it in 2010 because of that year’s elections.
California recently changed the law, the first time it could be used was in 2010, where a Citizens Commission draws the districts. The committee consists of ten each of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. It’s awesome and it drove both the Democrats and the Republicans batshit. They tried to overturn it a couple of times unsuccessfully.
Is she? Or is it that she can raise a shitload of money to defeat anyone who challenges her?
I tried googling her SF approval rating, and didn’t come up with anything I would trust.
You’re right! My (former) Congressman is a corrupt scumbag!
It’s mainly the primary system that holds representatives in their seats. Without party approval it’s difficult to push the incumbent aside in the primaries. In the general election people tend to vote party. Recently this has changed on the Republican side from the efforts of the Tea Party successfully challenging incumbent Republicans in the primaries. It remains to be seen if this is a lasting effect. Even in major changes in the house, there’s only a shift of around 10% of the seats.
Charlie Cook rates House races: if the odds of a party switch are about 40-60%, it’s called a “Tossup”. In 2012, 22 seats were tossups, about 5% of the total, scattered across the country. Other seats had odds of victory topping 85%: safe seats had 99.8% safety. For the majority in the latter situation, primaries are the greater threat, at least if you are a Republican.
She’s not polarizing, she is being used to polarize. Look at the hate directed at Obama who is about as moderate a President as we’ve had in decades.
Massive, gross stupidity.
What I was trying to get at, while I recognize that there are probably some really nice guys in that collective of 535 people, you could spend more time investigating some of the creepy crap that individual members are doing, especially since you have to fill 24 hours with news every day.
So which party ended up with 20 seats on the committee, and which one ended up with 10? I mean, yeah, ten of them had to write on a little piece of paper that they weren’t members of either party, but surely nobody would actually fall for that, would they?
:rolleyes:
Assuming that you’re actually interested and not being an ass about it, you can read about it here: California Citizens Redistricting Commission - Wikipedia
I had the numbers wrong. It’s five from each party and four Independents. They are chosen from a huge pool of applicants and based on voter registration and all vetted.
Writing on a little piece of paper? Seriously?
I think the main problem with Congress isn’t “creepy crap,” it’s simply the inability to work together and make compromises.
True story:
One of my co-workers turned 19 earlier this year, and was tickled pink to be participating in her first election. Unfortunately, she went to the wrong polling place, and then had to get to a doctor’s appointment followed by work, and she wasn’t able to vote.
Me: “That’s OK, you’ll be able to vote in two years.”
Her: blink “You mean four years.”
The idea of a midterm election apparently didn’t occur to her at all. (And she’s an intelligent person). Of course, midterms aren’t as sexy as presidential elections.
There are elections more often than every two years, actually. It’s just for local stuff and not Congress though.
This is my take. I think there is a disturbingly large amount of poeple who just don’t give a shit about their local electives.
The President tho? On no, he’s a powerful creature that can wave his magic wand and make the whole country better.
Actually, I think this depends on where you live. In New York state (or at least the county where I am), there are indeed some local elections in the odd years. However, as I recall when I lived in Maryland, whatever local offices we elected were in the even years. (And the number of such local elected offices were, thank God, fewer than in NY State where [with only a little exaggeration] we have to vote for Assistant Deputy City Pound Court Judge)
In CA we have propositions as well. I think that technically there could be an election every six months but some are skipped in practice.
This. I would have no idea who Nancy Pelosi was if I hadn’t heard right-wingers sneering her name. She’s done nothing to piss me off, nor has she done anything to make me happy (other than indirectly causing the schadenfreude if feel whenever somebody pisses off Rush Limbaugh). By herself, she’s not polarizing, she’s “meh”.