• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to hear case that could change how voting districts are drawn

faithful_servant said:
Why would there be any reason to draw voting districts based on anything other than the population of CITIZENS?? We are the ones who vote and are represented by our elected officials, so why should anyone outside that group be included in the decisions on voting districts?? Non-citizens have no voice in our gov't, just the protection of our laws and that's the way it needs to be (and is in pretty much every country on the planet).
Click to expand...

Amen and amen. Each state should divide up the districts equally either by land area or by population and this should be done as fairly and equitably as possible to gain equal numbers in the voting districts rather than favor this or that demographic. And to divide the districts among those eligible to vote seems an honest and fair way to do it too by redistributing power throughout the entire voting public instead of concentrating it in the large urban areas.
 
I don't think illegal immigrants should have any influence whatsoever. If they wanted things to be fair they would be legal. Minors however, are still citizens recognized by the United States of America, and therefore, even though they aren't "voting eligible" they should still have some sort of influence.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Wow ! It took 46 posts for a partisan libby to bring up the Koch brothers, as if they had anything to do with the topic.

Congrats !
Click to expand...


There's nothing partisan about it. They are spending nearly a billion dollars trying to get their paid shills (re)elected. Sorry if that pains you.
 
Erod said:
In what universe would you count people for voting purposes that aren't eligible to vote in the first place?

I can't believe this even requires debate.

Liberals have no bounds for their underhandedness.
Click to expand...

Counting for representation.
Not "for voting purposes."

Don't you think children should be represented by Congress even though they can't vote? Isn't everyone in a district a constituent?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I guess the Founders were paranoid also then since they're the ones that set things up for only citizens being allowed to vote eh?
Click to expand...

yeah cause modern america is so similar to a country of 3 million that was surrounded by external threats. The founders also carved out a rule that only a natural born citizen could run for prez, which is really hard to justify in today's world
 
chromium said:
yeah cause modern america is so similar to a country of 3 million that was surrounded by external threats. The founders also carved out a rule that only a natural born citizen could run for prez, which is really hard to justify in today's world
Click to expand...

:shock: :doh

Let me guess...you're an open all the borders wide open kinda guy huh?

What applies back then still applies today. Amount of people does not mean a good idea suddenly is a bad idea. Not to mention we are still surrounded by external threats. Or have you forgotten all about N.Korea, Iran, ISIS etc etc specifically so you could spew such garbage?

Tell ya what, how about we get the President of Iran elected since you think that anyone and everyone should be able to become President of the US. Or how about Putin? According to liberals those conservatives absolutely LOVE him! Or how about Ole' Kim? He might not be all that liked but I'm sure he's got some GREAT ideas on how to run our country! Or maybe one of their generals?

I really can't believe the stupid comments that I see on this forum sometimes.
 
Seems like it's a no brainer to have districts drawn according to legal, voting citizens. Illegals and minors who are ineligible to vote should have no representation nor should their residence somewhere dilute political votes from legal voting citizens.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:shock: :doh

Let me guess...you're an open all the borders wide open kinda guy huh?

What applies back then still applies today. Amount of people does not mean a good idea suddenly is a bad idea. Not to mention we are still surrounded by external threats. Or have you forgotten all about N.Korea, Iran, ISIS etc etc specifically so you could spew such garbage?

Tell ya what, how about we get the President of Iran elected since you think that anyone and everyone should be able to become President of the US. Or how about Putin? According to liberals those conservatives absolutely LOVE him! Or how about Ole' Kim? He might not be all that liked but I'm sure he's got some GREAT ideas on how to run our country! Or maybe one of their generals?

I really can't believe the stupid comments that I see on this forum sometimes.
Click to expand...

This is a nation founded by immigrants and besides that, i don't respect national borders. We live in a global society and communicate globally on a regular basis (this forum included). We have a right as global citizens to travel anywhere

Those fringe elements you listed are no threat. You aren't gonna see north korean tanks down your street any time soon. But here is my point. I couldn't give a **** less if obama was born in kenya. That has no relevance to anything except some antiquated and ethnocentric belief that kenyans aren't to be trusted, even if they have no memory of the place. I couldn't give a **** less if ted cruz is canadian, or arnold is austrian.

You really have to be paranoid indeed if you think there's any chance the nutjob hermit they made a comedy of could ever win election here, or a staunch russian nationalist. You know who does scare me though? Ted cruz, sarah palin, or any of the uneducated masses holding public office. See, it's plausible enough to happen.

And you're a mod means i'm not surprised at the litany of stupid comments on this forum
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
This is a nation founded by immigrants and besides that, i don't respect national borders. We live in a global society and communicate globally on a regular basis (this forum included). We have a right as global citizens to travel anywhere

Those fringe elements you listed are no threat. You aren't gonna see north korean tanks down your street any time soon. But here is my point. I couldn't give a **** less if obama was born in kenya. That has no relevance to anything except some antiquated and ethnocentric belief that kenyans aren't to be trusted, even if they have no memory of the place. I couldn't give a **** less if ted cruz is canadian, or arnold is austrian.

You really have to be paranoid indeed if you think there's any chance the nutjob hermit they made a comedy of could ever win election here, or a staunch russian nationalist. You know who does scare me though? Ted cruz, sarah palin, or any of the uneducated masses holding public office. See, it's plausible enough to happen.

And you're a mod means i'm not surprised at the litany of stupid comments on this forum
Click to expand...

This just shows the naiveté of this ideology. It completely ignores reality.

We do not live in a global society. We live in a Group society. We are not one big harmonious group of people. We all have our own ideas of what should and shouldn't be. Often times those ideologies conflict with other peoples ideologies. For that reason we split into groups. After that we generally try and ignore each other as much as possible. Trade when we have to. Talk to each other when we have to. We even go to war with each other for various reasons. But we never ever combine. Even here in the US where we have pretty much every group possible in the world living in this country we still split up into groups. Republican vs Democrat. White vs Black vs Chinese vs (insert race here). Liberal vs Conservative. Eco-Friendlies vs Miners vs Timbermen. 1%er's vs poor. Mexico. China. US. Russia. 147 some odd countries.....ETC ETC ETC ad nauseum . And YOU think that everyone else is wrong. That your way is the RIGHT way.

Pfft. I don't care if you respect national borders. 99% of the people in this country..nay...WORLD, want national borders. (how they want enforcement of it may differ) And whether you like it or not you have to obey each and every countries rules and laws while in or attempting to get into those countries. If you don't like it then go found your own country and run it the way that you want it run. See how quickly you want your national borders enforced to keep unwanted people and the nutjob's out because you don't have the resources to handle the worlds population and scumbags.

And btw, yes, we're a nation of immigrants. A nation of immigrants that needs to keep out the wackos that want to destroy what this nation of immigrants stands for.
 
faithful_servant said:
They would still represent everyone. The issue is that the voting districts would be drawn up based on the population of those allowed to vote (IMO, it needs to be based on number of citizens, but this is a good starting point to hammer out the details).
Click to expand...

how will that be determined though? the census bureau doesn't currently ask that to the best of my knowledge and you're not really obligated to tell them that anyway.
 
Paschendale said:
This is one of those cases where I expect a straight partisan vote, as it is all about partisan power. This court will side with anything that allows more conservatives to get into offices, even if it further subverts the democratic process.
Click to expand...

well it may be a valid question, the Reynolds case in the 60s went too far in many ways (for example Alabama's legislature was set up where the state house was apportioned by population and the state senate by county, the SCOTUS struck down this set up with no precedent or legal principle to back this up)

I anticipate this wil be a compromise ruling.

it is not subversive to the democratic process to not count people not eligible to vote, because the whole democracy thing is based on voting. however there is no real way to effectively count eligible voting population at this time....
 
Jack Hays said:
California would likely lose most if illegal immigrants can't be counted.
Click to expand...

they would lose at most 4 seats in congress, that won't even bring the Rs up to a tie for the delegation...
 
Kal'Stang said:
This just shows the naiveté of this ideology. It completely ignores reality.

We do not live in a global society. We live in a Group society. We are not one big harmonious group of people. We all have our own ideas of what should and shouldn't be. Often times those ideologies conflict with other peoples ideologies. For that reason we split into groups. After that we generally try and ignore each other as much as possible. Trade when we have to. Talk to each other when we have to. We even go to war with each other for various reasons. But we never ever combine. Even here in the US where we have pretty much every group possible in the world living in this country we still split up into groups. Republican vs Democrat. White vs Black vs Chinese vs (insert race here). Liberal vs Conservative. Eco-Friendlies vs Miners vs Timbermen. 1%er's vs poor. Mexico. China. US. Russia. 147 some odd countries.....ETC ETC ETC ad nauseum . And YOU think that everyone else is wrong. That your way is the RIGHT way.

Pfft. I don't care if you respect national borders. 99% of the people in this country..nay...WORLD, want national borders. (how they want enforcement of it may differ) And whether you like it or not you have to obey each and every countries rules and laws while in or attempting to get into those countries. If you don't like it then go found your own country and run it the way that you want it run. See how quickly you want your national borders enforced to keep unwanted people and the nutjob's out because you don't have the resources to handle the worlds population and scumbags.

And btw, yes, we're a nation of immigrants. A nation of immigrants that needs to keep out the wackos that want to destroy what this nation of immigrants stands for.
Click to expand...

I never lay claim to establishing a utopia. It's a simple principle that you twist beyond recognition: you or i or anyone else has no right to restrict the movement of others. Until you can see that, i've no desire to go into the practicality of it or hypotheticals
 
chromium said:
I never lay claim to establishing a utopia. It's a simple principle that you twist beyond recognition: you or i or anyone else has no right to restrict the movement of others. Until you can see that, i've no desire to go into the practicality of it or hypotheticals
Click to expand...

So no one has private property huh? We have no Right to tell others to not go onto our property huh? We should also let anyone and everyone safe passage onto military installations right? After all, its wrong to restrict others movements and we don't have the right to do so!

Yes. We do have the Right to restrict other peoples movements to areas that they do not belong. Until you see that your "idea" will always be considered preposterous.

And of COURSE you don't want to go into the practicality of it or the hypotheticals...because then your idea would be exposed for what it is. Nonsense. Looney Toons type nonsense.

marvin-martian-is-funny-cartoon-947.jpg
 
Deuce said:
Counting for representation.
Not "for voting purposes."

Don't you think children should be represented by Congress even though they can't vote? Isn't everyone in a district a constituent?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. And what is next after that? Perhaps we need to adjust the districts so that only those who actually did vote in the last election are counted?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
well it may be a valid question, the Reynolds case in the 60s went too far in many ways (for example Alabama's legislature was set up where the state house was apportioned by population and the state senate by county, the SCOTUS struck down this set up with no precedent or legal principle to back this up)

I anticipate this wil be a compromise ruling.

it is not subversive to the democratic process to not count people not eligible to vote, because the whole democracy thing is based on voting. however there is no real way to effectively count eligible voting population at this time....
Click to expand...

It is subversive to cherry pick who you want to count in specific places just to reduce the representation of specific demographics, which is what this is about. It is entirely arbitrary how we choose to draw districts, but the intent should be to make the legislature match the population as much as possible. This move is to achieve the opposite of that intent. The only purpose here to is to gerrymander districts so as to be less representative.
 
Middleground said:
There's nothing partisan about it. They are spending nearly a billion dollars trying to get their paid shills (re)elected. Sorry if that pains you.
Click to expand...

You mean kinda like Tom Steyer and Bloomberg spends to get their shills elected???

Only difference is that their dem candidates still lose. Just goes to prove that money can't put dogs into office that the people don't want.
 
Gill said:
You mean kinda like Tom Steyer and Bloomberg spends to get their shills elected???

Only difference is that their dem candidates still lose. Just goes to prove that money can't put dogs into office that the people don't want.
Click to expand...

Tom Steyer: $57 million
Koch brothers: Almost 1 Billion, not including all their involvements with conservative think tanks.

As usual, you fall flat.
 
Middleground said:
Tom Steyer: $57 million
Koch brothers: Almost 1 Billion, not including all their involvements with conservative think tanks.

As usual, you fall flat.
Click to expand...

You should get your information from a reputable source instead of Media Matters. Makes you look uninformed... come to think of it, you are.

According to Open Secrets:

Fahr LLC (Tom Steyer): $75,289,659, Ranking - 5

Bloomberg: $29,805,731, Ranking - 43

Koch Industries: $28,572,742, Ranking - 48

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
 
Gill said:
You should get your information from a reputable source instead of Media Matters. Makes you look uninformed... come to think of it, you are.

According to Open Secrets:

Fahr LLC (Tom Steyer): $75,289,659, Ranking - 5

Bloomberg: $29,805,731, Ranking - 43

Koch Industries: $28,572,742, Ranking - 48

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Click to expand...

You should stop getting your news from pyjama news and Fox. Otherwise, you'd know that the Koch brother are trying to buy the 2016 election. Who needs Media Matters when you got:

Koch-backed network aims to spend nearly $1 billion in run-up to 2016 - The Washington Post

Secret Koch memo outlines plans for 2016 - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

Koch brothers political network planning $889 million of spending in 2016 | Reuters

Koch brothers set $889m budget for 2016 presidential election | US news | The Guardian
 
digsbe said:
Seems like it's a no brainer to have districts drawn according to legal, voting citizens. Illegals and minors who are ineligible to vote should have no representation nor should their residence somewhere dilute political votes from legal voting citizens.
Click to expand...

Sure thing. Just find me one single politician anywhere who has said "It is not my duty to represent the children in my district."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom