RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes

RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic awwwwwwwwwww all the hypocrisy from your responses and making me chuckle, thanks boys. Im overwhelmed with shame for not bothering to rip all three of you new orifices, with rebutting your various idiocies.... snickers yep the only truth was actually from Rich....and it had the desired effect, its better than watching all the ignorant righties in the ignorant liberals thread, all running over here to bark.... little pavlovs doggies. I dont care btw...its obviously illegal, yet you just wanna do the same misdirection have some testicular fortitude please for once. now off to enjoy ribfest, have a good day winks They want to call a Rorschach image a dem district. I look at a Worhal painting or a lizard or a snake or.....? and call it a repub district. As I've been trying to tell you kinkroids, the dems are amateurs the repubs are real pros at this corruption, much better at picking their voters than getting the voters...to pick them and the only way they get any majorities anymore.

MrRodgers -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:11:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr First, I think there is a difference between "re-districting" and "gerrymandering". I have no issue (at times) with re-districting which must be done, occasionally because good neighborhoods don't necessarily have a lot of in-and-out flow. People tend to stay, grow old, raise their children and not have anymore. It helps everyone to bring in "new blood" to the district (at times). Since new people (maybe larger families) aren't moving in, the older residents wind up paying for the higher costs of services at a time when they want to think about retiring. The problem is (when there's a legitimate reason to re-district) that when the governing authority decides on redistricting, the partisan scumbag hacks come out of the woodwork because they see a way to "steal" more seats by making sure that the districting falls in line with certain (profiling) attributes. The issue is no longer what's best for the people in the district; it's "How can we get as many districts under our control?". They're leeches of the first order. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? Redistricting is the vehicle for gerrymandering.

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:16:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy It's confounding that US voting districts are not controlled and regulated by non partisan interests. During the last election Democrats won over a million votes more than Republicans, yet the Republicans got 33 more members into the House of Representatives than the Democrats. So, in the USA you can have a smaller tent and still win. That is natural. House members are chosen by equal population districts within a state. This means total vote count for each party does not override the will of the local district voters. This is why the House starts the legislative process. It is because they are the "representatives" of a smaller geographic location and therefore more in tune and can better represent the local interests. More districts went GOP and the larger Dem vote centered in the larger metro areas could not control the entire state because much of it was spread thin over the non-metro districts. This is the way the Congress is designed. Sorry.

TheHeretic -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge How do you fix it in order to make it fair and just? I've already mentioned a couple new things we are trying in California, Gauge. Other states can follow suit, or find their own ways. Shifting to proportional representation (which would require an amendment to the Constitution) is an idea I'm happy to kick around, but my mind is not made up about it. Having a Rep. from the area, with a specific set of constituents to answer to, has advantages as well.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:19:21 PM)
I've read that the divide is related more to urban-rural differences than Gerrymandering -- but the end result is clearly undemocratic. Rural voters are over-empowered -- especially in the Senate.

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:37:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I've read that the divide is related more to urban-rural differences than Gerrymandering -- but the end result is clearly undemocratic. Rural voters are over-empowered -- especially in the Senate. Rural voters are not over-empowered and the way it happened in Florida is the urban areas are in smaller geographic districts to make all districts close to the same population. This means that a larger vote resulting in a smaller number of seats was the result of their larger vote centered in deep metro areas but also spread out among districts filled with retirees that overwhelmingly voted GOP and so their conservative wishes were not controlled by smaller geographic areas with denser populations of Dems. The same thing happens on a national level with the Senate. The Senate, two senators for each State, are chosen by total vote in each state. This means the more populous states cannot control the Senate and those in less populous states have the same representation at the state level. So to sum. The Congress is designed with one house of representatives from small districts, which keeps more populous areas from controlling and negating the will of other areas, proposing laws which then should be considered by the Senate which can adjust the proposed law based on their views from a state level. But the Senate is limited to two votes per state which keeps the more populous states from controlling the Senate. In short, we are a republic not a democracy. In a democracy, there is one vote for each person. In a republic, we vote on representatives in a way that smaller population geographic areas do not lose their representation to those states with larger populations. What you want is the East and West coasts controlling everything and fortunately the Constitution of the United States of America prevents that.

subrosaDom -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:54:02 PM)
That's actually a protection against tyranny. Why? Say Candidate A1 beats Candidate B1 by 100,000 votes. But B2 beats A2, B3 beats A3 and B4 beats A4 each by 1,000 votes. So party A has achieved 97,000 more votes because they dominate one proportionally represented district. If you count the votes only in toto, then the other 3 districts receive representation they expressly rejected! The whole point is the dominance in one particular district or even a bunch of districts doesn't mean that the rest of the districts in the country can't self-govern. To say otherwise is antithetical to the Constitution itself. This is a further complement to Arturas's post, which is spot on because we are a Constitutional Republic with a representative democracy. We are not a "democracy" -- which means nothing more than mob rule and the destruction of all individual rights. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy It's confounding that US voting districts are not controlled and regulated by non partisan interests. During the last election Democrats won over a million votes more than Republicans, yet the Republicans got 33 more members into the House of Representatives than the Democrats. So, in the USA you can have a smaller tent and still win.

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 3:56:19 PM)
quote: So party A has achieved 97,000 more votes because they dominate one proportionally represented district. If you count the votes only in toto, then the other 3 districts receive representation they expressly rejected! The whole point is the dominance in one particular district or even a bunch of districts doesn't mean that the rest of the districts in the country can't self-govern. To say otherwise is antithetical to the Constitution itself nicely put.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 5:08:22 PM)
I don't like the Senate, I feel it too undemocratic. A depopulated state like Wyoming having two senators is about as undemocratic as you get. It is kind of a miracle the democrats even control it considering the rural - urban divide. Beyond being a republic, the US is also undemocratic in a variety of other ways. It is debatable that if "the people" we're any more empowered we'd be better or not, considering the ignorance of most voters.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 7:51:11 PM)
LordandMaster, who has moved on from the CMMB, opened my eyes to this problem 4 years ago: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3403415/mpage_1/key_senate/tm.htm#3403415

subrosaDom -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 7:56:06 PM)
But pure democracy is not an ideal. It is the abnegation of individual rights. Just get a majority (or a plurality) and your rights go away. So all rights are temporal. This can and does easily devolve into a dictatorship. Without a republic, neither you nor I have any protection whatsoever. Yet, you appear to advocating for a "pure" democracy. Why? Vox populi isn't so great when the people hate you; it encourages populism, nationalism, racism, and discrimination against and destruction of the different. What do you think would happen if bdsm were put up to a national vote? The same if blacks deserving equal rights had been put to a vote in 1830. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I don't like the Senate, I feel it too undemocratic. A depopulated state like Wyoming having two senators is about as undemocratic as you get. It is kind of a miracle the democrats even control it considering the rural - urban divide. Beyond being a republic, the US is also undemocratic in a variety of other ways. It is debatable that if "the people" we're any more empowered we'd be better or not, considering the ignorance of most voters.

subrosaDom -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 7:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A judge says Florida’s gerrymandering went too far. Here’s what he means. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/11/a-judge-says-rules-floridas-gerrymandering-went-too-far-heres-what-he-means/ A circuit court judge ruled on Thursday that the Florida legislature's redrawn congressional districts were illegal, violating a state law preventing certain types of gerrymandering. A look at maps from before and after the redraw pretty clearly show what the Legislature hoped to accomplish. Before the 2010 Census, Florida had 25 congressional districts. After, that number jumped to 27, thanks to an increase in the state's population. When state lawmakers set out define how those districts would be outlined, they relied on the advice of operatives from the Republican party, who provided input with the app arent goal of maximizing the party's advantage in the House. In 2008, 11 of the 25 districts were held by Democrats. In 2012, 10 of the 27 were. More info at these sites http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-florida-redistricting-20140710-story.html http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-florida-districts-redrawn-affect-us-congress-205725230.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/12/gop-keeps-house-edge-in-democratic-leaning-states/ now this is illegal, wheres the outcry to send these people to jail.... wheres the house committee? If Milton Berle were alive, he'd have said that he tried to gerrymander Florida assholes and he ended up at the proctologist's office.

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 8:15:11 PM)
An elected circuit court judge declares the last redistricting illegal. Yawn. Are we done here yet?

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 8:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I don't like the Senate, I feel it too undemocratic. A depopulated state like Wyoming having two senators is about as undemocratic as you get. It is kind of a miracle the democrats even control it considering the rural - urban divide. Beyond being a republic, the US is also undemocratic in a variety of other ways. It is debatable that if "the people" we're any more empowered we'd be better or not, considering the ignorance of most voters. I understand you don't like the Senate. The primary issue is all the states have an equal say. I hope I have your issue correct in it's basic form. So, you propose giving States with more population more say. So they could pass a law that taxes farm income more than capital gains and that we can now house illegals on Wyoming federal and private lands by confiscating said private lands. You see where this goes from here. So, you hold up a pure democracy as if it is a holy grail when in fact it is an evil that would be used to put less populated states under the control of the more populated states for their own benefit.

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 8:36:51 PM)
quote: It is debatable that if "the people" we're any more empowered we'd be better or not, considering the ignorance of most voters. So, you suggest having a vote on each law by everyone would be better? We certainly don't have a well informed voter population I suppose we are talking about being informed about the representatives we sent to Washington. I also suppose it is because we tend to make judgments based not on fact but on gut feel and emotion about our vote. It's called politics rather than science for that reason among others.

Arturas -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 9:08:13 PM)
These are the United States and it is called that because each state is equal. If not, then some states would be more equal and more united over those not as equal. We are all about checks and balances in this Republic. This form of Government checks over control by a branch of Government and/or states and balances the power of one state with another. We are not the United People of America but the United States.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 9:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr First, I think there is a difference between "re-districting" and "gerrymandering". I have no issue (at times) with re-districting which must be done, After the census, there is, many times, a reason to re-district. The ebb and flow of the population means each state may not have the same number of representatives as after the previous census. That has nothing to do with aging Districts and new blood.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 9:21:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I don't like the Senate, I feel it too undemocratic. A depopulated state like Wyoming having two senators is about as undemocratic as you get. It is kind of a miracle the democrats even control it considering the rural - urban divide. Beyond being a republic, the US is also undemocratic in a variety of other ways. It is debatable that if "the people" we're any more empowered we'd be better or not, considering the ignorance of most voters. I say we go back to the way it was supposed to be, where the State Legislatures named their Senators. The Senate was supposed to represent the States. Each State was to have equal representation. It didn't have anything to do with the number of people in the State, since Senators were to represent the State's interests.

subrosaDom -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 9:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas These are the United States and it is called that because each state is equal. If not, then some states would be more equal and more united over those not as equal. We are all about checks and balances in this Republic. This form of Government checks over control by a branch of Government and/or states and balances the power of one state with another. We are not the United People of America but the United States. "And some animals were more equal than others."

subrosaDom -> RE: Gerrymandering Florida Assholes (7/13/2014 9:34:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I don't like the Senate, I feel it too undemocratic. A depopulated state like Wyoming having two senators is about as undemocratic as you get. It is kind of a miracle the democrats even control it considering the rural - urban divide. Beyond being a republic, the US is also undemocratic in a variety of other ways. It is debatable that if "the people" we're any more empowered we'd be better or not, considering the ignorance of most voters. I say we go back to the way it was supposed to be, where the State Legislatures named their Senators. The Senate was supposed to represent the States. Each State was to have equal representation. It didn't have anything to do with the number of people in the State, since Senators were to represent the State's interests. I agree with this entirely -- except in Massachusetts :) :) I venture to say that less than 1% of the population (perhaps less than 0.1%) believes anything other than that Senators were always elected by popular vote. Perhaps 2% actually know what States' Rights are. So it's an uphill battle.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875