Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

  1. #11
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,163
    Blog Entries
    38

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    Iowa is not gerrymandered, and as far as I am aware the only state in the union not. They have a computerized system based on just population and area. Its seems to work and there have been few complaints about the system.
    That's great. I came up with a plan to keep as many counties whole as possible and tried it out on Georgia. 14 districts, 159 counties, I only had to divide up 7 counties just using the county census figures and a stubby pencil. I live in a county that has about 50,000 folks, yet is is divided into 3 different congressional districts. There's no reason for that.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #12
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    11,270

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    That's great. I came up with a plan to keep as many counties whole as possible and tried it out on Georgia. 14 districts, 159 counties, I only had to divide up 7 counties just using the county census figures and a stubby pencil. I live in a county that has about 50,000 folks, yet is is divided into 3 different congressional districts. There's no reason for that.

    I am sure Iowa would love to export their system. They do it for all their offices I believe.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,163
    Blog Entries
    38

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    I am sure Iowa would love to export their system. They do it for all their offices I believe.
    I would love to see it exported. I am sick and tired of these representatives choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their representatives.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-24-18 @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    What we should have learned in a Civics Class:
    *All democracies have three fundamental characteristics: The independence of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial powers. These three "independent" bodies are the only guaranties of real freedom of a nation from "usurpation" of political power.
    *All such democracies employ the popular-vote to designate their representative to the Executive and Legislative positions, with the exception of the Judiciary (that is nominated by the Executive, but approved by the Legislature).
    *All political offices (local, state and national) in a truly democratic nation will be obtained by means of the popular-vote and only the popular-voting process.
    *The voting regulations will describe and conduct fair voting-procedures at regular intervals in order to assure the collective consent by means of a popular-vote of the nation's constituents of voting age.
    *By "fair voting procedures" is meant:
    **No voter with a proper identity card, of a stipulated age, and proving their residence will be forbidden to vote.
    **No voting district will be "gerrymandered" to concentrate the vote favoring any political party
    **Voting hours and procedures will be fair and honest to accommodate the largest number possible of all voters.
    A few thoughts on the posting:

    First, we (the U.S.) are a Republic and not a true democracy. We have vertical, as well as horizontal protections against tyranny. Separation of Powers is the horizontal and Federalism is the vertical.
    Second, The U.S. does not employ popular vote for our national Executive. We have the Electoral College for that. We used to have Senators not voted by the people.
    Third, can illegal residents vote? I don't think they can for Federal offices.
    Fourth, gerrymandering has been discussed and it does exist.

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,552

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    HOW WRONG CAN YOU GET?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    A few thoughts on the posting:

    First, we (the U.S.) are a Republic and not a true democracy. We have vertical, as well as horizontal protections against tyranny. Separation of Powers is the horizontal and Federalism is the vertical.
    Second, The U.S. does not employ popular vote for our national Executive. We have the Electoral College for that. We used to have Senators not voted by the people.
    Third, can illegal residents vote? I don't think they can for Federal offices.
    Fourth, gerrymandering has been discussed and it does exist.
    Very. Like many Americans, you are in dire need of a Civics Class.

    First of all, America is both a Democracy and a Republic. The first incorporates the individual right to vote political representation, which is the fundamental bedrock right of an free country. The second (Republic) is necessary to characterize the US as a collection of states under one Federal governance but each with their own powers of governance as well (limited geographically to the confines of their state).

    For which, key is the "separation of powers" between state and nation.

    Second, the Electoral College has proven itself undemocratic by electing 5 times in American history (and twice in 20 years) the Presidential loser of the popular vote, thus denying the democratic right of all people to elect their candidate of choice.

    Third, we have two Chambers of Congress - the number of Representatives is determined by population, the Senators defined as two per state. Which merely means equilibrating Senatorial powers with that of the Representative popular-vote.

    Fourth, illegal residents have no inherent right whatsoever (guaranteed by law) to vote. What Wikipedia says of the matter, excerpt:
    Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections, punishing them by fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility, and deportation. Exempt from punishment is any non-citizen who "reasonably believed at the time of voting (...) that he or she was a citizen of the United States," had a parent who is or was a citizen, and began permanently living in the United States before turning 16 years old. The federal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926
    Therefore, they simply undergo the normal process of "naturalization", which is subject to national law. No person entering the US has, ipso facto, the right to naturalization - and particularly if they have a criminal record of any kind.

    Fifth, gerrymandering is still legal in the land. It is outlawed NOWHERE in the US (and can be proved mathematically to be an unjust representation of the vote). It is employed - more or less - everywhere to manipulate the popular vote in a country that is traditionally a two-party system. The manipulation is characterized by the disproportionality of EC-votes by population numbers AND the fact that "winner takes all EC-votes" as a finality.

    It is therefore wholly illegal since it contravenes the democratic notion of One Person, One Vote. And should be declared as such by National Law. (Or the Supreme Court, whichever may come first.)

    Moreover, we should be ashamed as a nation that all the above exist, because it demonstrates clearly a national lack of understanding the basic principles of a democracy[/COLOR], which we are fundamental and have always been.

    The US is not today a Perfect Democracy, and has never been one - given its manner of voting the Executive by means of the Electoral College (misrepresented and with winner-take-all voting). Fortunately, this has proven to be a precious lesson to other democracies that have since come to be.

    Period.
    Last edited by Lafayette; 10-21-17 at 05:22 AM.
    Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them; then neither persons nor property will be safe. (Frederick Douglass)

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,552

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    And here is a bit of American legislative history as determined by the Supreme Court already in the mid-1960s (from here):
    Federal requirements for state legislative redistrictingThe United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races."

    According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."


    Of course, the applies applies to the internal districting of a state. What remains to be seen is the number of Electoral Votes to which a state can be effected given its population. That subscription must reflect the exact voting population of the state, that is, according to its exact number of "voting constituents".

    And, of course, the Federal government has the right to define the mechanism that permits a voter to vote in a Federal election (which ipso facto should also define the same right at the state-level). Or, it should have.

    Everybody likes to harp back to the Constitution when it comes to voting rights. But, in fact, the Constitution as regards Amendment 12 (passed in 1804,
    when the country was barely 8 years old) created the Electoral College. And why?

    Because how could "the country" at the time execute national elections for state representatives to the presidency and Congress in a timely manner. It was necessary that the vote be executed in the states and then reported to Congress - and for that the Electoral College was conceived. And the smaller states took advantage of the situation to institute both the EC-rules - like winner take all votes, which is not the LEAST BIT proportional. As well as disproportionality between the voting population number and the EC voting number. In addition gerrymandering the state to manipulate the vote outcome.
    (Lest we forget why the above rules were thought necessary. There were neither any trains nor any highways in 1804. Just heavily used "trails" for horse drawn carriages.)

    Do those same unfair voting conditions exist today? Yes! Because we've never done anything about changing them!

    Moreover, an excellent must-read article regarding the Electoral College from the Minneapolis Post: 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem
    Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them; then neither persons nor property will be safe. (Frederick Douglass)

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-24-18 @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    HOW WRONG CAN YOU GET?
    In my lifetime, I have been known to be wrong about many things, but not in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    Very. Like many Americans, you are in dire need of a Civics Class.
    Please do not be insulting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    First of all, America is both a Democracy and a Republic. The first incorporates the individual right to vote political representation, which is the fundamental bedrock right of an free country. The second (Republic) is necessary to characterize the US as a collection of states under one Federal governance but each with their own powers of governance as well (limited geographically to the confines of their state)..
    The Electoral College elects the President and we do not vote on issues directly; therefore, as a country, we are not a true democracy, which is what I said. I don't think James Madison disagrees with me.

    "Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

    "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."


    The Federalist #10

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-24-18 @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    [B]For which, key is the "separation of powers" between state and nation.
    I'm pleased that we have agreement on the horizontal and vertical separations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    Second
    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    , the Electoral College has proven itself undemocratic by electing 5 times in American history (and twice in 20 years) the Presidential loser of the popular vote, thus denying the democratic right of all people to elect their candidate of choice.
    You may not like the Electoral College, but it exists and is in place. If you wish to end it, you will need a Constitutional Amendment to amend Article II, Section 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    [B]Third, we have two Chambers of Congress - the number of Representatives is determined by population, the Senators defined as two per state. Which merely means equilibrating Senatorial powers with that of the Representative popular-vote.
    I already knew this. Of course, this ensures that Delaware has the same power in the Senate as does California.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    Fourth, illegal residents have no inherent right whatsoever (guaranteed by law) to vote. What Wikipedia says of the matter, excerpt:

    Therefore, they simply undergo the normal process of "naturalization", which is subject to national law. No person entering the US has, ipso facto, the right to naturalization - and particularly if they have a criminal record of any kind.
    Thank you for confirming what I said I believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    Fifth, gerrymandering is still legal in the land. It is outlawed NOWHERE in the US (and can be proved mathematically to be an unjust representation of the vote). It is employed - more or less - everywhere to manipulate the popular vote in a country that is traditionally a two-party system. The manipulation is characterized by the disproportionality of EC-votes by population numbers AND the fact that "winner takes all EC-votes" as a finality.

    It is therefore wholly illegal since it contravenes the democratic notion of One Person, One Vote. And should be declared as such by National Law. (Or the Supreme Court, whichever may come first.)
    The Constitution says that the times, places and manner of holding elections for Representatives are the responsibility of the state legislatures; however, Congress could change how it is done. They have not done so. Also, as a side note, where does the Constitution say "One Person, One Vote?"

    "Section 4.

    The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations""]


    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    Moreover, we should be ashamed as a nation that all the above exist, because it demonstrates clearly a national lack of understanding the basic principles of a democracy[/COLOR], which we are fundamental and have always been.
    I am not ashamed of the manner in which we elect people nor am I ashamed as to what process people are to use to change the Constitution. I will not be presumptuous and assume what others may or may know about our government and Constitution. I am sure that there are people who are well-educated in constitutional history, while others may not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    The US is not today a Perfect Democracy, and has never been one - given its manner of voting the Executive by means of the Electoral College (misrepresented and with winner-take-all voting). Fortunately, this has proven to be a precious lesson to other democracies that have since come to be.

    Period.
    Since we have not been nor does the Constitution say we are a democracy, I would only suggest that you use Article V to change things you find wrong with our Constitution.

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,552

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Since we have not been nor does the Constitution say we are a democracy, I would only suggest that you use Article V to change things you find wrong with our Constitution.
    The constitution does not say anything about male-female equality either. Therefore, for you, there is none.

    I do not think that was in the initial spirit of those who conceived it originally.

    One Amendment can annul another - but, yes, any amendment must be passed by a popular vote of the nation. Thank God, then, that the 12th Amendment's destitution need not be voted in the Electoral College itself ... !
    Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them; then neither persons nor property will be safe. (Frederick Douglass)

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,552

    Re: Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    The Electoral College elects the President and we do not vote on issues directly
    No, but we do vote both Chambers of Congress, and they most certainly vote on "issues" ...
    Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them; then neither persons nor property will be safe. (Frederick Douglass)

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •