Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

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.

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

And now begins the hunting of the snark.

But in all fairness, we must do something about gerrymandering.

joG said:

And now begins the hunting of the snark.

But in all fairness, we must do something about gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

The problem is with gerrymandering is neither party wants to get rid of it. Each party relishes the idea of using gerrymandering when they are in power. They write our election laws and as such they could do away with gerrymandering in a heartbeat if they had a mind to. They don't. Their rhetoric may say so, but it is one big lie.

After the 2010 census the Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York, Republicans howled how unfair that was and gerrymandering had to end. But the Republicans gerrymandered Texas and North Carolina after the same 2010 census while the democrats ranted and raved at the injustice of the GOP gerrymandering those states. Each major party wants to make it unlawful for the other party to gerrymander while keeping gerrymandering legal for their party.

State legislatures draw the districts in most states, each state legislature could draw un-gerrymandered districts. They won't, they want to give their political party the best advantage possible. While I also think gerrymandering needs to end, I don't see it ever doing so. Not as long as gerrymandering can give one political party an advantage over the other.

Perotista said:

The problem is with gerrymandering is neither party wants to get rid of it. Each party relishes the idea of using gerrymandering when they are in power. They write our election laws and as such they could do away with gerrymandering in a heartbeat if they had a mind to. They don't. Their rhetoric may say so, but it is one big lie.

After the 2010 census the Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York, Republicans howled how unfair that was and gerrymandering had to end. But the Republicans gerrymandered Texas and North Carolina after the same 2010 census while the democrats ranted and raved at the injustice of the GOP gerrymandering those states. Each major party wants to make it unlawful for the other party to gerrymander while keeping gerrymandering legal for their party.

State legislatures draw the districts in most states, each state legislature could draw un-gerrymandered districts. They won't, they want to give their political party the best advantage possible. While I also think gerrymandering needs to end, I don't see it ever doing so. Not as long as gerrymandering can give one political party an advantage over the other.

Click to expand...

And how would you end gerrymandering? We can try to get as non partisan as possible but we know that's impossible think about how the judiciary is supposed to be non partisan. And as long as groups vote the same way it's easy to know exactly what the effect will be when you draw a map.

Perotista said:

The problem is with gerrymandering is neither party wants to get rid of it. Each party relishes the idea of using gerrymandering when they are in power. They write our election laws and as such they could do away with gerrymandering in a heartbeat if they had a mind to. They don't. Their rhetoric may say so, but it is one big lie.

After the 2010 census the Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York, Republicans howled how unfair that was and gerrymandering had to end. But the Republicans gerrymandered Texas and North Carolina after the same 2010 census while the democrats ranted and raved at the injustice of the GOP gerrymandering those states. Each major party wants to make it unlawful for the other party to gerrymander while keeping gerrymandering legal for their party.

State legislatures draw the districts in most states, each state legislature could draw un-gerrymandered districts. They won't, they want to give their political party the best advantage possible. While I also think gerrymandering needs to end, I don't see it ever doing so. Not as long as gerrymandering can give one political party an advantage over the other.

Click to expand...

It is also not quite clear, how to get rid of gerrymandering in the first place. Anything you do could be so interpreted, if it changes the status quo. Possibly the only way to go is to have all parties active in a State be required with one vote each to agree on district lines for the vote. Where they cannot decide the lines stay the same as before.

Crovax said:

And how would you end gerrymandering? We can try to get as non partisan as possible but we know that's impossible think about how the judiciary is supposed to be non partisan. And as long as groups vote the same way it's easy to know exactly what the effect will be when you draw a map.

Click to expand...

There probably isn't any way to completely end gerrymandering. But one way to make it fairer would be a rule or law that any state must keep as many counties whole as possible. No dividing up counties into different districts unless it is necessary which it will always be so in a few counties to keep each district near or at the same population threshold.

It can be done, I did it for Georgia using just the population figures of her 159 counties, a stubby pencil and a sheet of paper. I only had to divide up 8 counties and all 14 districts would have been within 5% of the average threshold. Of course you would have districts heavily urban and other rural. You would still have fairly safe districts. But there would be none of this dividing a county up between two, three or four districts. You may have several districts within a county that contains a large city. But that is the way the cookie crumbles.

joG said:

It is also not quite clear, how to get rid of gerrymandering in the first place. Anything you do could be so interpreted, if it changes the status quo. Possibly the only way to go is to have all parties active in a State be required with one vote each to agree on district lines for the vote. Where they cannot decide the lines stay the same as before.

Click to expand...

I put forth my idea in post number 6. Now before gerrymandering ends, we would have to do away with federal mandated or court mandated gerrymandering majority minority districts. There would be a ton of problems with any idea that would have to be overcome. Even when a state initiates an independent commission, it seems they really aren't all that independent. California did that and it seems from reading several articles they drew district lines more in favor of the Democrats than if the democratic state legislature would have drawn them. Good idea ending gerrymandering, but how is the big question. It probably never can be done away with.

Treat it like jury duty. This is not a complicated task, you simply don't want someone who has access to census voting data doing, just access to population size. Randomly tap people each year, or every couple years, to change or adjust the map. All you need is a map with population laid out by area, and a calculator.

Thank you for this info! really touching!!

Perotista said:

The problem is with gerrymandering is neither party wants to get rid of it. Each party relishes the idea of using gerrymandering when they are in power. They write our election laws and as such they could do away with gerrymandering in a heartbeat if they had a mind to. They don't. Their rhetoric may say so, but it is one big lie.

After the 2010 census the Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York, Republicans howled how unfair that was and gerrymandering had to end. But the Republicans gerrymandered Texas and North Carolina after the same 2010 census while the democrats ranted and raved at the injustice of the GOP gerrymandering those states. Each major party wants to make it unlawful for the other party to gerrymander while keeping gerrymandering legal for their party.

State legislatures draw the districts in most states, each state legislature could draw un-gerrymandered districts. They won't, they want to give their political party the best advantage possible. While I also think gerrymandering needs to end, I don't see it ever doing so. Not as long as gerrymandering can give one political party an advantage over the other.

Click to expand...

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.

PirateMk1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Perotista said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am sure Iowa would love to export their system. They do it for all their offices I believe.

PirateMk1 said:

I am sure Iowa would love to export their system. They do it for all their offices I believe.

Click to expand...

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.

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

HOW WRONG CAN YOU GET?

LesGovt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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."

Click to expand...

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

Lafayette said:

HOW WRONG CAN YOU GET?

Click to expand...

In my lifetime, I have been known to be wrong about many things, but not in this case.

Lafayette said:

Very. Like many Americans, you are in dire need of a Civics Class.

Click to expand...

Please do not be insulting.

Lafayette said:

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)..

Click to expand...

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

Part 2

Lafayette said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm pleased that we have agreement on the horizontal and vertical separations.

Lafayette said:

Second

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

, 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

I already knew this. Of course, this ensures that Delaware has the same power in the Senate as does California.

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming what I said I believed.

Lafayette said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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""]

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LesGovt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 ... !

LesGovt said:

The Electoral College elects the President and we do not vote on issues directly

Click to expand...

No, but we do vote both Chambers of Congress, and they most certainly vote on "issues" ...

Lafayette said:

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.

Click to expand...

*sigh* I wish these people would understand America was never meant to be a direct democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic! Therefore, the Electoral College stays put. This is because I don't want sh!tholes like New York, LA, Chicago, etc. dictating the agenda of the country. The EC is the fairest, most equitable way to elect the POTUS

LesGovt said:

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.

Click to expand...

One need not be a professor of Constitutional Law. One needs only a sense of "basic fairness and equity".

And you have shown, as others who believe in the sanctity of the Electoral College, that you have none.

Lafayette said:

And here is a bit of American legislative history as determined by the Supreme Court already in the mid-1960s (from here):

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

Click to expand...

12th Amendment did not create the Electoral College. Why do you willfully continue to be wrong about that? Speaking of poor civics learning. Jees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lafayette said:

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 ... !

Click to expand...

Repealing the 12 Amendment still leaves the Electoral College in place but would have given us Vice-President Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lafayette said:

One need not be a professor of Constitutional Law. One needs only a sense of "basic fairness and equity".

And you have shown, as others who believe in the sanctity of the Electoral College, that you have none.

Click to expand...

I do not apologize for believing in the Constitution.