No, I wasn’t troubled at all. Obama is an adult, and was doing his level best to govern. Trump is a car crash on two feet and only does his level best for himself, meanwhile abetting every backward, arrogant, grasping, self-centered policy the Republican party can come up with.
Any other self-evident questions?
So lose your “concern” over gerrymandering.
You’re only looking for partisan advantage, on your side of the aisle.
I wasn’t partisan at all until very recently. I have always made my own decisions on political issues regardless of party lines. I started out Republican when I was very young, transitioned to independent for the last 25 years, and would have stayed that way except for a certain orange-haired candidate and his hypocritical Republican backers. So please, stop talking like you have the slightest clue who I am or what my decision-making process is.
In 2009 I didn’t give a shit that Dems held Congress and the Presidency because they were adults trying to better the country. The current regime is only trying to turn it into a bigoted, plutocratic shithole.
Funny how gerrymandering doesn’t matter as long as it’s Republicans who are getting away with it. Oh, no big deal, it’s only 6 or 8 seats.
*snip
I’ve heard this argument before, but a good argument can be made that a north-south cut would simply give you one entrenched lazy, sleazy, dirtbag Republican and one entrenched lazy, sleazy dirtbag Democrat.
If you do the east-west cut, the party that has 40% can run a quality candidate and pick off enough votes to win an election. This will cause the majority party to likewise nominate a quality candidate so that this does not happen. So, you would end up with two districts, and two quality officeholders, even if the majority party wins more times than not, which it should, being the majority party.
Funny, your posts don’t illustrate any actual concern with gerrymandering per se, just with who controls the Congress/White House. :rolleyes:
Sorry, bud. That was your concern, not mine. My posts dealt with votes in the House until you started pointedly inquiring about control, which I answered in more detail than you probably deserved. Maybe you should examine why it’s so important to you that you project it onto others.
And, speaking of partisanship…
Puddleglum wrote: “Very little of it. Democrats tend to be highly clustered in urban areas whereas Republicans are spread out more. Thus the only way to prevent it would be to purposely draw districts to be competitive which would be illegal under the voting rights act.”
This is often cited by those who either don’t see the problem or don’t see it as a problem. The “spreading out” of Republicans is, in many cases, merely geographic. The areas in which they live are just as solidly Republican as the “clustered” Democratic ones are Democratic.
This is not an either/or situation. There are parts of my state of Michigan, which are never going to be competitive, but that’s no reason not to have competitive districts where you can.
My district, Michigan’s 14th, starts out in Detroit (mostly black), sends a narrow tendril over, then picks up some integrated near suburbs and then ends up in Pontiac (again mostly black).
It is one thing to adhere to the voting rights act and create districts which are “majority minority”. It is another to use that requirement as a rationale for the creation of what I term “electoral ghettos”.
Do you actually know anything about votes in the House? A great many of them are roughly along party lines. Vote totals around 240 to 175 are not uncommon. You “concern” about a margin of 6-8 seats is irrelevant. Bud.
Bullshit. You don’t get to cherrypick votes. You either believe that it’s OK for Republicans to gain 6-8 votes illegitimately or you don’t. You clearly do, and I clearly don’t.
Bullshit yourself.
Today:
240 -175
237-178
3/16/17:
229-187
227-185
227-185
3/15/17:
223-183
How are your (mythical, at this point) 6-8 votes going to change anything?
And do NOT tell me what I believe. You are in no position to do so.
Heh this from a person who just recently tried to tell me what I believe. Avoiding projection is a good thing.
How do I put this? So what?
But let’s just make this is clear as possible. Answer this question. Don’t evade, don’t quote recent votes, answer the question. Is it alright with you that Democrats lost 6-8 votes due to gerrymandering?
Is it “alright” with you if Democrats win 6-8 votes due to gerrymandering?
You don’t seem to know what you are talking about. It’s not just “recent votes” in the past week. We can extend the search to the last year, the year before that, and the year before that. The vast majority of votes are on party lines, even at the committee level.
Sure, naming a Post Office might get 425-2, or even unanimous consent. Not so much for anything else.
Do you remember when the ACA was passed solely with Dem votes, in both chambers?
Yeah, but that level of obstructionism came with the rise of the Tea Party element of the Republican party.
And people like the Koch’s spent millions of dollars objecting to anything Obama wanted. ESPECIALLY the ACA.
Right. Please cite examples where this has been the case. You can’t? What a surprise.
Since you’re clearly opposed to answering the question directly, I’m left to theorize based on your responses. It’s alright with you that Republicans now hold that number of seats which should have been Democratic, because to you the size of the problem is beneath your notice, like shoplifting gum.
And I’ll go out on a limb and bet you’re a Republican.
The GOP beat the Democrats 9-4 in the 2012 North Carolina Congressional elections despite that the Democratic candidates got more total votes! Is that some sort of record?
They achieved this because their gerrymandered legislature was in charge of drawing Congressional districts. However, while detailed info can be found about Congressional districts (e.g. at Wikipedia) — one can see the gerrymandering with one’s own eyes — my Googling showed up nothing better than this page for the N.C. state house. Before the 2010 election the GOP had only 43% of the state house seats; after it was the Dems that had only 43%. But why the turnaround in 2010? Just a normal GOP dominance in years not divisible by four?
The legislature redrew its own districts as well as Congress’, and upped its state house advantage to a >60% super-majority in 2012. Did they do that, as with Congress, with a minority of the popular vote? I don’t know; Wikipedia/Ballotpedia don’t show me.
[QUOTE=Johnny Ace;20077266I]
t’s alright with you that Republicans now hold that number of seats which should have been Democratic, because to you the size of the problem is beneath your notice, like shoplifting gum.
[/QUOTE]
Who determines which seats should be Democratic or Republican? The voters. Not you.
And “alright” isn’t a word.
It’s alright, our editors shoulda changed it.
Thanks septimus. Thank you all. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at cases that courts have proven to be cases of gerrymandering to determine what are and aren’t cases of gerrymandering. Are the rulings necessarily fair? That’s a matter of debate.
Here’s a pending case:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/articles/2017-03-17/ruling-in-gerrymandering-trial-forthcoming
This case was stricken;
This case was proven to be a case of gerrymandering:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5e6d6u/federal_judges_panel_finds_state_redistricting/?st=j0hpaq6s&sh=43681bef
Gerrymandering isn’t inherently illegal, so you can’t just look at the results of court cases.
You still steadfastly refuse to state a solid position. Circular arguments don’t qualify.
Who determines the number of voters of each party in each district? Legislators.
Don’t play word police with me; it doesn’t distract me. ‘Alright’ is a word, whether or not it happens to be slang.