• 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!

An end to Gerrymandering?

Kal'Stang said:
Why should cities get more of a say over those "cornfields in Iowa"? You want equal representation don't you? Both area's should have the same amount of say. Not more. Not less. Equal. Believe it or not the concerns of those in cornfield country are just as important as the concerns of those in the cities and they deserve just as much attention as the concerns of those in the cities.
Click to expand...

This cannot be a serious post.
 
JMaximus said:
The legislature, thankfully, isn't supposed to represent the will of the American people at large.
Click to expand...

It they don't represent us, then they can't tax us. Taxation without representation is tyranny.
 
MrWonka said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...epublicans-nationwide/?utm_term=.6402065d6e67

Could we finally be on the verge of an end to Gerrymandering?

Everyone knows that Gerrymandering happens, and the courts have long said that it violates the constitution, but the problem forever has been how to prove that districts have been intentionally Gerrymandered in a consistent way that would make banning Gerrymandering possible. How can we enforce a law requiring districts to be drawn fairly?

The answer may finally have been found. It's called voter efficiency. Essentially it's the the number of votes that each party wasted in an election. Votes that did not help their party win an election at all. A vote is considered wasted if it is cast in a losing election, or if it's a surplus vote in a winning election. Since the goal of good gerrymandering is to insure that your party wins a high number of seats by a relatively low margin whereas your opponent only wins a very small number of seats, but with a huge margin. We can calculate how badly a state is gerrymandered based upon the discrepancy between the wasted votes for one party versus the other.

Right now there are 15 states who's efficiency gap exceeds 7% which is the margin by which the party with the advantage can be certain to maintain it's advantage from one election to the next. Out of those 15 states only two favor Democrats. If this decision is upheld and it is entirely possible that all of those states could be forced to redraw their districts before the 2018 election.
Click to expand...


Still blaming the last 6 years of Democrat loses in the House on Gerrymandering ? Im all for it !
Both parties redistrict, been doing it since the 1800s, and the Senate isnt Gerrymandered.

14 new GOP Governors too. Americans thoroughly rejected the Obama agenda, again and again and again.
 
I've always found gerrymandering an interesting topic of conversation, mainly because I like to play devil's advocate for kicks. There are some interesting arguments and examples to be made once you get into the realities of it.
 
Fenton said:
Still blaming the last 6 years of Democrat loses in the House on Gerrymandering?
Click to expand...
I believe Democrats actually received more votes in the House in the last three consecutive elections so.....yeah.


Fenton said:
and the Senate isnt Gerrymandered.
Click to expand...
The Senate is another problem entirely. Wyoming has fewer people living in it that Washington D.C. yet they have two senators and D.C. has zero. California about 60x more people living in it, and yet they have the same representation as Wyoming. So again Republicans are getting more representation despite fewer voters.

Fenton said:
Americans thoroughly rejected the Obama agenda, again and again and again.
Click to expand...

No, they rejected obstructionism, they're just to stupid to understand who caused it. That will backfire on republicans in the next couple elections though I assure you.

Fenton said:
14 new GOP Governors too.
Click to expand...
Governorships are the only real point you have. The one failure of the Democratic party is it's focus on national elections more so than local elections. Certainly a problem, but not a problem of national beliefs simply a problem with strategy which I assure you will be remedied.
 
MrWonka said:
I believe Democrats actually received more votes in the House in the last three consecutive elections so.....yeah.



The Senate is another problem entirely. Wyoming has fewer people living in it that Washington D.C. yet they have two senators and D.C. has zero. California about 60x more people living in it, and yet they have the same representation as Wyoming. So again Republicans are getting more representation despite fewer voters.



No, they rejected obstructionism, they're just to stupid to understand who caused it. That will backfire on republicans in the next couple elections though I assure you.


Governorships are the only real point you have. The one failure of the Democratic party is it's focus on national elections more so than local elections. Certainly a problem, but not a problem of national beliefs simply a problem with strategy which I assure you will be remedied.
Click to expand...

I hope you keep making excuses for the Democratic defeats and ignore the Senate and Governor races. I am sure you realize that California gets more electoral votes and House members that Wyoming. Keep believing it wasn't the Obama record and policies that were on the ballot in November in the run for Congress. With that attitude the Democratic Party will never win another election
 
Fenton said:
Still blaming the last 6 years of Democrat loses in the House on Gerrymandering ? Im all for it !
Both parties redistrict, been doing it since the 1800s, and the Senate isnt Gerrymandered.

14 new GOP Governors too. Americans thoroughly rejected the Obama agenda, again and again and again.
Click to expand...

They should look at Ohio. Columbus was covered by 3 or 4 districts. Ohio redistricted in 2010/2012. It's a very heavily Republican lean redraw but Democrats got a solid new district out of it..the 3rd District which covers 70% of Columbus. Before that.. 7th, 12th, 15th district was heavily republican. Columbus had but one Democrat in 30 years in Congress and she was elected in 2008.
 
Conservative said:
Keep believing it wasn't the Obama record and policies that were on the ballot in November in the run for Congress. With that attitude the Democratic Party will never win another election
Click to expand...

You can't even win the elections you "win." I think you should worry about your own ****. If President Obama could have run for re-election against Trump he would have almost certainly won in a landslide, and probably taken the Senate back along with him.
 
MrWonka said:
You can't even win the elections you "win." I think you should worry about your own ****. If President Obama could have run for re-election against Trump he would have almost certainly won in a landslide, and probably taken the Senate back along with him.
Click to expand...

As Obama stated,

https://www.google.com/#q=Obama+although+I+am+not+on+the+ballot+my+policies+and+legacy+are

Like far too many you ignore results to rely on your feelings. The electorate got it, you have no idea what would have happened with Obama on the ballot but you want to speculate because you like the guy. His results aren't to be liked and weren't
 
The issue of gerrymandering isn't that more Democrats are elected, or that more Republicans are elected. It's that once a congressman is elected, it's very difficult to defeat him/her as a lot of voters won't cross party lines.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The issue of gerrymandering isn't that more Democrats are elected, or that more Republicans are elected. It's that once a congressman is elected, it's very difficult to defeat him/her as a lot of voters won't cross party lines.
Click to expand...

Which is why we are at the point that we should be demanding term limits
 
Conservative said:
Which is why we are at the point that we should be demanding term limits
Click to expand...

Yes, we should.

And when an apathetic electorate is able to convince, or coerce, a self interested Congress into passing a bill that would make them go back to the private sector, that will be when pigs fly, Hell freezes, and San Francisco votes Republican.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The issue of gerrymandering isn't that more Democrats are elected, or that more Republicans are elected. It's that once a congressman is elected, it's very difficult to defeat him/her as a lot of voters won't cross party lines.
Click to expand...

Also, the people who would be in charge of ending gerrymandering are the people who benefit from continuing it.
 
Conservative said:
Which is why we are at the point that we should be demanding term limits
Click to expand...


Public trust in Congress is lower than their trust in the media. Yet, the public re-elects their own representatives. Now they want term limits. Follow that logic. That's because they aren't willing to sacrifice the time it takes to find the representation that will work for them. What ever makes you think some bureaucratic limitation will solve your problems for you?
 
bluesmoke said:
Public trust in Congress is lower than their trust in the media. Yet, the public re-elects their own representatives. Now they want term limits. Follow that logic. That's because they aren't willing to sacrifice the time it takes to find the representation that will work for them. What ever makes you think some bureaucratic limitation will solve your problems for you?
Click to expand...
States have term limits so why not the federal government? All you're doing now is creating career politicians who are running for the next election instead of doing their job

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
States have term limits so why not the federal government? All you're doing now is creating career politicians who are running for the next election instead of doing their job

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I can see that in the House of Representatives, where the term is only two years. It’s like having to be in campaign mode all the time. But that’s just to keep your job in order to do your job. If anything, I’d sooner extend the term to three or four years, so that more time is spent doing one’s job than electioneering. But there are reasons for the two-year term our forefathers had in mind. And, what’s wrong with a career politician? The people decide. The problem is in the field of candidates we have to choose from, IMO.
 
bluesmoke said:
I can see that in the House of Representatives, where the term is only two years. It’s like having to be in campaign mode all the time. But that’s just to keep your job in order to do your job. If anything, I’d sooner extend the term to three or four years, so that more time is spent doing one’s job than electioneering. But there are reasons for the two-year term our forefathers had in mind. And, what’s wrong with a career politician? The people decide. The problem is in the field of candidates we have to choose from, IMO.
Click to expand...
The problem with career politicians is a spend so much time buying votes that they forget what their job really is. I doubt seriously that are founders expected politicians to remain in office for 30 years

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
MrWonka said:
I believe Democrats actually received more votes in the House in the last three consecutive elections so.....yeah.



The Senate is another problem entirely. Wyoming has fewer people living in it that Washington D.C. yet they have two senators and D.C. has zero. California about 60x more people living in it, and yet they have the same representation as Wyoming. So again Republicans are getting more representation despite fewer voters.



No, they rejected obstructionism, they're just to stupid to understand who caused it. That will backfire on republicans in the next couple elections though I assure you.


Governorships are the only real point you have. The one failure of the Democratic party is it's focus on national elections more so than local elections. Certainly a problem, but not a problem of national beliefs simply a problem with strategy which I assure you will be remedied.
Click to expand...

So youre blaming these staggering Democrat losses on GOP obstructionism and not Obama ?

Even though for 6 years under Obama Harry Ried tabled hundreds of GOP bills ?
33 Senate seats are up for grabs in 2018, and 25 belong to Democrats.
10 of those seats are in States Trump won

So youre strategy of defending Obama's agenda and legacy and ignoring reality ? Brilliant strategy, hope the Democrats play along.
They cant seem to get out of the way of their own stupidity lately
 
Conservative said:
The problem with career politicians is a spend so much time buying votes that they forget what their job really is. I doubt seriously that are founders expected politicians to remain in office for 30 years

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I have a tendency, though not fully, to agree with your first statement. Where I disagree is that campaigning is one of the few times the representative must engage with the voter. As to do with founders expectation of time in office, the founders wrote into the Constitution that both Senate and House have the right to unlimited six and two year terms, respectively. Also, though I haven’t been able to find it on the internet, what I remember from civics lessons is that the House had but two years in order to allow the voters a quick turnover to best reflect the most current mood of the people’s wishes.
 
Conservative said:
The problem with career politicians is a spend so much time buying votes that they forget what their job really is. I doubt seriously that are founders expected politicians to remain in office for 30 years

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The problem is, the same people who would have to pass term limits are those career politicians.
 
Conservative said:
Which is why we are at the point that we should be demanding term limits
Click to expand...

They could be term limited, but the district is still drawn so one or the other party wins. You're just replacing one party line Democrat with another (also works for Republucans).
 
rocket88 said:
They could be term limited, but the district is still drawn so one or the other party wins. You're just replacing one party line Democrat with another (also works for Republucans).
Click to expand...
How does that affect Senate and Governor races

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom