• 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!

Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

Not for a few decades...are you insinuating you were schooled in a one-room schoolhouse?

Decades? When I was in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade, there were two years in one room! CD cardboard water containers in the basement, pledge of allegiance, cursive (upper and lower case) on display above the blackboard and I was routinely assigned the task of cleaning the erasers after the school day.................decades? at least five or six....
 
Of course they do. Fight fire with fire.

That does not make fire acceptable ...

That completely depends on the rules and how the are enforced. Don’t you think?
 
That completely depends on the rules and how the are enforced. Don’t you think?

I've been arguing in this thread how the rules have been bent since the signing of the Constitution, in which the south sought a method for lower population states to manipulate the selection of the PotUS. (Later codified far more strictly in the 12th Amendment.)

It's amazing how people think that some other means of deciding the president other than the popular-vote is acceptable. The Electoral College is sham and we should have known that every time - five times in American history - that the EC-vote defied the Popular-vote (which should have prevailed).

And this forum shows vividly enough how some Americans cannot get that fundamental-truth into their noggin.

The Electoral College is dysfunctional and a travesty of presidential Electoral Justice*. It's time to dump-it rather than genuflect at the illogic that "it's in the original constitution". What is wrong is wrong and must done away with - particularly in an election to the highest office in the land**.

Period ...

*If it is so acceptable, why not employ it as well to elect America's state Executives? (That is, governors.)
**And never has that truth been more evident since the election of Donald Dork.
 
It also presumes they didn't start it or were active in it at the beginning. I know better than to presume that. I see no reason to put the Democrats on higher moral ground.

I see a great benefit to Human Justice that the electoral playing field of the presidential election should be leveled for all who participate.

You don't seem to understand that the Electoral College vote-manipulation makes a sham of any democracy that employs it.

Such ignorance of the truth is baffling, to say the least.

You need to catch-up on comprehension of basic Civics terminology. You believe the BS handed to voters since time immemorial in high-school that the US democracy is "the Greatest Nation on Earth".

Which given the facts made obvious yet again - for the second time in 20 years - regarding a presidential election, show that notion to be a patent lie.

Only the Popular-vote can determine a head-of-state in a truly democratic election ...
 
I see a great benefit to Human Justice that the electoral playing field of the presidential election should be leveled for all who participate.

You don't seem to understand that the Electoral College vote-manipulation makes a sham of any democracy that employs it.

Such ignorance of the truth is baffling, to say the least.

You need to catch-up on comprehension of basic Civics terminology. You believe the BS handed to voters since time immemorial in high-school that the US democracy is "the Greatest Nation on Earth".

Which given the facts made obvious yet again - for the second time in 20 years - regarding a presidential election, show that notion to be a patent lie.

Only the Popular-vote can determine a head-of-state in a truly democratic election ...

So we aren't a great nation unless we have mob rule?
 
I've been arguing in this thread how the rules have been bent since the signing of the Constitution, in which the south sought a method for lower population states to manipulate the selection of the PotUS. (Later codified far more strictly in the 12th Amendment.)

It's amazing how people think that some other means of deciding the president other than the popular-vote is acceptable. The Electoral College is sham and we should have known that every time - five times in American history - that the EC-vote defied the Popular-vote (which should have prevailed).

And this forum shows vividly enough how some Americans cannot get that fundamental-truth into their noggin.

The Electoral College is dysfunctional and a travesty of presidential Electoral Justice*. It's time to dump-it rather than genuflect at the illogic that "it's in the original constitution". What is wrong is wrong and must done away with - particularly in an election to the highest office in the land**.

Period ...

*If it is so acceptable, why not employ it as well to elect America's state Executives? (That is, governors.)
**And never has that truth been more evident since the election of Donald Dork.

As you must know, there is no group dicision making mechanism is perfect. And were one honest, one would agree that five decisions of the type that cause you pain, are not many in so many years. I doubt you could propose a system that does a better job.
 
It is more about spreading distrust, discord and delegitimizarion.

Only if you're a believer in mob rule and are sore-assed about an election, otherwise it's none of those.
 
Only if you're a believer in mob rule and are sore-assed about an election, otherwise it's none of those.

Not sure how it impacts "mob rule". All the electoral college does is create a fictitious winner take all situation. Trump won 4 or so states by less than 70k total votes yet received all electoral votes as if he had swept the states.

That's all the electoral college does...whichever group loses in a state they have no say so over voting for the President. If you are a Democrat or...even millions of them in Texas, your vote actually goes towards a Republican. If you are a Republican in California...or millions of them...your vote ends up going to a Republican.

It's a bizarre and old fashioned way of voting for the only national office in the country.

As for protection against the mob...the idea was that the college would sometimes vote different than the people. I'm sure if members of the electoral college did that you wouldn't be happy with their stance against "mob rule"
 
As you must know, there is no group dicision making mechanism is perfect. And were one honest, one would agree that five decisions of the type that cause you pain, are not many in so many years. I doubt you could propose a system that does a better job.

Were we honest with ourselves, as a people we'd repair a heinous mistake in our democracy.

There is a strong fault in the fact that we have not done so. Because we accept deceitfully that power is everything, even if it means manipulating the electoral vote to obtain it. Who are we kidding? Ourselves.

All of which makes a sham of American democracy - and the mindless presidential election of 2017.

Money is power, and power is money. Since both allow political-parties to manipulate a system that is easily manipulable. And why?

Because we, the sheeple, allow it to happen.

It is stupefying that any supposedly well-governed country would allow political manipulation of the presidential vote to occur ...
 
Last edited:
Only if you're a believer in mob rule and are sore-assed about an election, otherwise it's none of those.

If it were only this post, I would tend to write it off to a lesser comprehension of group decision making. But the griping concerns economic and social topics that are talked up in purely populist manner and a vague whiff of knowledge mixed in to make it sound scientific. The only intent can be to spread discontent, if ignorance is not the cause.
 
Were we honest as a people we'd repair a heinous mistake in our democracy.

There is a strong fault of logic in the fact that we have not done so. Because we acknowledge that power is everything, even if it means manipulating the electoral vote to obtain it.

That makes a sham of American democracy ...

I asked, what mechanism you think would work with fewer problems?
 
If it were only this post, I would tend to write it off to a lesser comprehension of group decision making. But the griping concerns economic and social topics that are talked up in purely populist manner and a vague whiff of knowledge mixed in to make it sound scientific. The only intent can be to spread discontent, if ignorance is not the cause.

Quite an interesting way to attempt to brush off criticism of your unqualified racial conspiracy theories.
 
THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS

I asked, what mechanism you think would work with fewer problems?

The one we've got (as a governmental mechanism) is not bad. It's just badly run.

The problem is NOT in the mechanism, but those who manipulate it. Whyzzat?

Because, we have decided to make money the Central Attribute & Criteria of our lives. That is, it's touchstone. Which is "a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized".

And we measure everything that we think is of any consequence to that standard. More important non-Monetary Values therefore suffer.

In economics, how many times must it be repeated that Income Disparity is the major wrong of the American economy? And yet, as a nation, that is not any major concern. The major preoccupation is "Do we both have jobs?" and "How much do we earn?", and "Are we keeping up with the Joneses?". To such an extent, that our children, simply mimicking their parents, grow up learning exactly the same rote questions.

We measure ourselves by comparison to one another in financial terms, as made obvious by where we live, how we live and the car we drive. Which are external economic manifestations of very little consequence to an attribute called "inner happiness".

Whazzat? The very simple knowledge that what we are earning is sufficient to our level of existence and we could care less how much more or less others are earning. To a certain point - nobody should have to live permanently in poverty.

The above response is more sociological than it is economic. Let's not forget that we are first sociological animals who depend upon one another - and only then economic beings. The science of economics is fundamentally a study of how we interact with one another given the necessity to earn a living for our families ...
 
To be honest, I never realized what gerrymandering was all about until this forum. Why don't they just use county lines? I have to research a bit more. :)
Gerrymandering is not good. What you suggest cannot work because each member of the House of Representatives needs to represent approximately the same number of citizens. It is extremely unlikely that congressional districts will represent anything near the same number of citizens if district lines follow county lines.
 
Quite an interesting way to attempt to brush off criticism of your unqualified racial conspiracy theories.

You think that defending the EC is an unqualified racial conspiracy?
 
THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS



The one we've got (as a governmental mechanism) is not bad. It's just badly run.

The problem is NOT in the mechanism, but those who manipulate it. Whyzzat?

Because, we have decided to make money the Central Attribute & Criteria of our lives. That is, it's touchstone. Which is "a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized".

And we measure everything that we think is of any consequence to that standard. More important non-Monetary Values therefore suffer.

In economics, how many times must it be repeated that Income Disparity is the major wrong of the American economy? And yet, as a nation, that is not any major concern. The major preoccupation is "Do we both have jobs?" and "How much do we earn?", and "Are we keeping up with the Joneses?". To such an extent, that our children, simply mimicking their parents, grow up learning exactly the same rote questions.

We measure ourselves by comparison to one another in financial terms, as made obvious by where we live, how we live and the car we drive. Which are external economic manifestations of very little consequence to an attribute called "inner happiness".

Whazzat? The very simple knowledge that what we are earning is sufficient to our level of existence and we could care less how much more or less others are earning. To a certain point - nobody should have to live permanently in poverty.

The above response is more sociological than it is economic. Let's not forget that we are first sociological animals who depend upon one another - and only then economic beings. The science of economics is fundamentally a study of how we interact with one another given the necessity to earn a living for our families ...

If it's not bad and it is not the mechanism, why did you say it was bad and needs replacing?
 
WE LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES

If it's not bad and it is not the mechanism, why did you say it was bad and needs replacing?

Depends upon the context in which I supposedly said what you claim above.

The advent at the turn of the 19th century was a Major Advance in mankind, not just the US. France too in the 1770s, a monarchy, was debating the issue of "democracy" and what it meant. Both Jefferson and Franklin were official representatives to France, which was aiding the US in its revolution against a common enemy - the British monarch. Both Americans and French debated "democracy" with French revolutionaries planning to topple the French king. (The US got around to freeing itself from the British King (1776) before the French decapitated their King in 1793.)

Both nations went on to establish "democracies" without knowing quite what the word actually meant. After all, there was no such thing extant in Europe at the time, and therefore no political "role model".

The essence of democracy lies in the tripartite nature of its structure - its three independent functional components. The Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary that formulated a sense of "check and balance" in terms of political leadership.

The economics of a nation at the time was not up for discussion. The word economy did not even exist.

And it still is. After two World Wars, in which the US participated, Europe went on to Social Democracy. The US nurtured a Capitalist Democracy as huge fortunes were made from the Industrial Age (that was developing at the end of the 18th and the 19th centuries).

And to this day, the US is still undecided as to what sort of democracy it wants. Europe opted for Social Democracies as a foundation upon which to rebuild itself.

The US today is clearly still a Capitalist Democracy largely due to the fact that the nation elects a party dedicated to low-taxation that benefits significantly just the wealthy. Which is what economic research has demonstrated clearly - such as here.

Is America changing? We live in interesting times - watch the handwriting on the walls ...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom