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*

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?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

How do you fix it in order to make it fair and just?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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,

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.