• 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

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Reuters: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

Excerpt:
In Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach’s bid to win a seat vital to the Democratic Party’s chances in 2018 elections of taking control of the U.S. Congress, his opponents may not be his biggest obstacle.

Leach is running in one of the country’s most gerrymandered congressional districts, one with such a twisting, winding shape that it has earned the derisive nickname “Goofy Kicking Donald Duck.”

The 7th congressional district has become a national poster child for critics of gerrymandering, the process by which one party draws district boundaries to ensure an advantage among voters. Democrats say the lines have helped Republicans like U.S. Representative Patrick Meehan, the four-term incumbent Leach seeks to unseat, to stay in office.

The litigation is part of a growing set of legal challenges to partisan redistricting, including a U.S. Supreme Court case out of Wisconsin that could for the first time establish a constitutional standard to measure the legality of such map-making. The high court is scheduled to decide that case by June 2018, five months before the midterm elections.

“The politicians are not supposed to pick their voters; the voters are supposed to elect their leaders,” said Mimi McKenzie, an attorney with the Public Interest Law Center who represents the League of Women Voters and other Pennsylvania voters.

Spokesmen for the state’s Republican legislative leaders, defendants in the case, said the redistricting followed the process laid out in the state constitution and that the U.S. Supreme Court has said political considerations can play a role.

Both the Electoral College and more importantly Gerrymandering are the two greatest travesties of voting-justice in America. It is time we, the sheeple, should be rid of both.

Only the popular-vote, undiminished by political manipulation (of the Electoral College and Gerrymandering), can make of America a Real Democracy ....
 
Last edited:
From Reuters: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

Excerpt:


Both the Electoral College and more importantly Gerrymandering are the two greatest travesties of voting-justice in America. It is time we, the sheeple, should be rid of both.

Only the popular-vote, undiminished by political manipulation (of the Electoral College and Gerrymandering), can make of America a Real Democracy ....

Gerrymandering can be a problem. The Electoral College is the saving grace of our presidential election process and will always serve us well.
 
LEGITIMACY

The Electoral College is the saving grace of our presidential election process and will always serve us well.

The Electoral College is not the least bit reflective of the popular-vote and in any Real Democracy the popular-vote is the only valid election-measure.

Moreover, the Electoral College has resulted in at least 5 instances where the loser of the democratic popular-vote was, in fact, the winner in the Electoral College. Twice recently, Al Gore lost to Dubya, and Hillary to Donald Dork.

Which has resulted in presidencies that are considered "less than satisfactory", and why they should be done away with.

It's simple - such elections have no real electoral legitimacy because our EC in far too many states has no direct proportionality to the popular vote. Which results in a map of the US, if measured according to proportionality of the Electoral College, that would look like this:
http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe5a391a0-a4df-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1


The distortion of the Electoral College vote should be evident.

Had elections been by popular-vote with two rounds to finalize an initial multiple-candidate vote*, none of the five historical-errors would have happened.

And finally, the US finds itself (with its electoral college) amongst this august list-of-nations: Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu.

Wow ... !

*First-round of all candidates who propose to run, and Second-round (in a weeks time) with the top two winners of the first round.
 
I think it is definitely time to look at gerrymandering. With today's technology it has become a far more powerful weapon than it ever has been.
 
From Reuters: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

Excerpt:


Both the Electoral College and more importantly Gerrymandering are the two greatest travesties of voting-justice in America. It is time we, the sheeple, should be rid of both.

Only the popular-vote, undiminished by political manipulation (of the Electoral College and Gerrymandering), can make of America a Real Democracy ....

I'll agree with popular vote when strict voter ID laws are enforced.
 
I think it is definitely time to look at gerrymandering. With today's technology it has become a far more powerful weapon than it ever has been.

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. :)
 
LEGITIMACY



The Electoral College is not the least bit reflective of the popular-vote and in any Real Democracy the popular-vote is the only valid election-measure.

Moreover, the Electoral College has resulted in at least 5 instances where the loser of the democratic popular-vote was, in fact, the winner in the Electoral College. Twice recently, Al Gore lost to Dubya, and Hillary to Donald Dork.

Which has resulted in presidencies that are considered "less than satisfactory", and why they should be done away with.

It's simple - such elections have no real electoral legitimacy because our EC in far too many states has no direct proportionality to the popular vote. Which results in a map of the US, if measured according to proportionality of the Electoral College, that would look like this:
http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe5a391a0-a4df-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1


The distortion of the Electoral College vote should be evident.

Had elections been by popular-vote with two rounds to finalize an initial multiple-candidate vote*, none of the five historical-errors would have happened.

And finally, the US finds itself (with its electoral college) amongst this august list-of-nations: Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu.

Wow ... !

*First-round of all candidates who propose to run, and Second-round (in a weeks time) with the top two winners of the first round.

According to who? You? And one of the Presidency is not over yet.
 
LEGITIMACY



The Electoral College is not the least bit reflective of the popular-vote and in any Real Democracy the popular-vote is the only valid election-measure.

Moreover, the Electoral College has resulted in at least 5 instances where the loser of the democratic popular-vote was, in fact, the winner in the Electoral College. Twice recently, Al Gore lost to Dubya, and Hillary to Donald Dork.

Which has resulted in presidencies that are considered "less than satisfactory", and why they should be done away with.

It's simple - such elections have no real electoral legitimacy because our EC in far too many states has no direct proportionality to the popular vote. Which results in a map of the US, if measured according to proportionality of the Electoral College, that would look like this:
http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe5a391a0-a4df-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1


The distortion of the Electoral College vote should be evident.

Had elections been by popular-vote with two rounds to finalize an initial multiple-candidate vote*, none of the five historical-errors would have happened.

And finally, the US finds itself (with its electoral college) amongst this august list-of-nations: Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu.

Wow ... !

*First-round of all candidates who propose to run, and Second-round (in a weeks time) with the top two winners of the first round.

I like how your map distorts the sizes of the blue states to make them appear bigger, giving an inaccurate illusion.
 
The Electoral College is not the least bit reflective of the popular-vote and in any Real Democracy the popular-vote is the only valid election-measure.
That's quite by design. The last thing the founders wanted to do was create a Real Democracy.
 
I think it is definitely time to look at gerrymandering. With today's technology it has become a far more powerful weapon than it ever has been.


Huh.. I never knew it was around for as long as it has been.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a mythological salamander.[4]


How would people go about changing this? Could it just be done by county? School districts?
 
Huh.. I never knew it was around for as long as it has been.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a mythological salamander.[4]


How would people go about changing this? Could it just be done by county? School districts?

Independent commissions. https://ballotpedia.org/Independent_redistricting_commissions

I think it would be a big step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but it is better than what we have now.
 
LEGITIMACY



The Electoral College is not the least bit reflective of the popular-vote and in any Real Democracy the popular-vote is the only valid election-measure.

Moreover, the Electoral College has resulted in at least 5 instances where the loser of the democratic popular-vote was, in fact, the winner in the Electoral College. Twice recently, Al Gore lost to Dubya, and Hillary to Donald Dork.

We need to avoid the popular vote, as our Founders understood, but too many today don't understand the reasoning behind it. We've never been a "true democracy" and that's a good thing.

Because our system of governance is represented at both the state and federal level, our Founders realized that large populations of citizens could easily overrule the best interests of less-populated states.

The EC was set up to give all regions better representation, despite their population. The EC is better at geographically representing the citizens.


Which has resulted in presidencies that are considered "less than satisfactory", and why they should be done away with.

Bull****. Less than satisfactory presidencies are a result of less than satisfactory candidates. Want better presidents? Run better candidates.

It's simple - such elections have no real electoral legitimacy because our EC in far too many states has no direct proportionality to the popular vote. Which results in a map of the US, if measured according to proportionality of the Electoral College, that would look like this:

The elections are perfectly legitimate and will remain that way.

The distortion of the Electoral College vote should be evident.

Had elections been by popular-vote with two rounds to finalize an initial multiple-candidate vote*, none of the five historical-errors would have happened.

And finally, the US finds itself (with its electoral college) amongst this august list-of-nations: Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu.

Wow ... !

*First-round of all candidates who propose to run, and Second-round (in a weeks time) with the top two winners of the first round.

The EC is the best and fairest way to elect a President. Many have whined and cried about it but that's just too bad. Their lack of understanding doesn't translate into a need to change the election process.
 
That's quite by design. The last thing the founders wanted to do was create a Real Democracy.

There is no such thing as "designed democracy".

It is simply and naturally ONLY the citizens' vote of the majority.

Dead simple, get it?

The only reason some people don't believe/accept that simplicity is because they don't want to do so.

They have some other objective in mind - like manipulating democracy to serve their own selfish purpose ...
 
I like how your map distorts the sizes of the blue states to make them appear bigger, giving an inaccurate illusion.

Not my design. It was taken from an presidential election that a Dem-prez won.

More than likely, Obama.

(Never did understand America's choice in colours. Red is politically Left, and blue typically Royal ...)
 
I'll agree with popular vote when strict voter ID laws are enforced.

It has always been a check on voter fraud. Regardless of how many illegal votes, you get the same number of electoral votes. In a national contest, we'd never have an undisputed winner due to fraud in the "machine state" where they brag about "delivering the vote". Literately in trunks of cars, sacks, and wheelbarrows.LOL
 
Because our system of governance is represented at both the state and federal level, our Founders realized that large populations of citizens could easily overrule the best interests of less-pop

Our system of governance is one of states within a democratic republic.

Which means that states have the right to govern matters related to their individual states.

Voting in a presidential election is by state only as a voting-convention - that is, the best means of identifying voters who vote. The practice of voting a president is actually national in nature.

The states have no right to either want or need to somehow "influence and control" the voting of the PotUS. The Chief Political Executive of the nation is voted nationally. Of course, that is not the way it happens, because voters cannot divorce themselves intellectually when it comes to voting for the nation's Chief Executive.

However, "Birds of a feather flock together" and we are all animals of that nature since the dawn of time ...
 
Last edited:
Yeah this country should rightly be run by mob rule. What could go wrong?

If you don't think Democrats regularly engage in gerrymandering, you're incredibly ignorant.

Of course they do. Fight fire with fire.

That does not make fire acceptable ...
 
Yeah this country should rightly be run by mob rule. What could go wrong?

If you don't think Democrats regularly engage in gerrymandering, you're incredibly ignorant.

Why does it have to be a left-right thing? It's just bad. It produces politicians who are more extreme in their views, because there is one dominant set of beliefs among their constituents, by design. With gerrymandering it's possible to take a state with 13 seats and a population that typically votes 50% party A, and end up with party A winning 3 seats in a landslide and losing the other 10 seats, all around 45% Party A to 55% Party B. Sure, 1 party is probably worse than the other, but it's all bad and needs to stop. It's at least part of the reason we're so divided, politicians can usually ignore and even insult the opposing party and still be confident in his/her gerrymandered win due to party affiliation, in fact this behavior often resonates with that dominant set of beliefs and clinches the win. And like others have mentioned, in this digital age where nothing is private and programs can draw the lines and crunch the numbers, it's much worse than any other time in history. Technology and inter-connectivity has allowed them to fine tune their technique.


Good Read:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...wing-crazy-looking-districts-can-t-it-n803051

North Carolina is one of eight states still fighting lawsuits related to redistricting in 2011 that followed the 2010 census. The state's Republicans have been blunt about their goals, according to a transcript from one lawsuit challenging the state's most recent maps.

"I acknowledge freely that this would be a political gerrymander, which is not against the law," state Rep. David Lewis, chairman of the House’s redistricting committee, is quoted as saying in a transcript of a committee meeting last year when the legislature was forced by courts to rework the maps again. "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."

That lawsuit notes that Democrats won 51 percent of statewide votes in 2012, but Republicans won nine of 13 seats, adding a tenth seat the next year with just a slim 53 percent majority of votes.

"The stark contrast of having a state that’s fairly evenly divided between the two parties and yet has a delegation of 10-3 Republican-Democrat just immediately raises the question of is it fair?" said Anita Earls, the executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents the suit's plaintiffs.

The party that happens to be in control at the right time can redistrict as they see fit, shamelessly undermining broad swathes of the population and misrepresenting them.
 
The EC is the best and fairest way to elect a President. Many have whined and cried about it but that's just too bad. Their lack of understanding doesn't translate into a need to change the election process.

Bollocks, piffle and drivel. We live on two intellectually different planets.

So be it ...
 
Of course they do. Fight fire with fire.

That does not make fire acceptable ...

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.
 
The party that happens to be in control at the right time can redistrict as they see fit, shamelessly undermining broad swathes of the population and misrepresenting them.

I suspect that any type of districting is going to be construed as misrepresentation.

Since the election isn't determined by popular vote but by the Electoral College, invoking the popular vote is worthless. It's like saying team X that won the Super Bowl really lost because team Y got more yardage in the game.
 
I suspect that any type of districting is going to be construed as misrepresentation.

Since the election isn't determined by popular vote but by the Electoral College, invoking the popular vote is worthless. It's like saying team X that won the Super Bowl really lost because team Y got more yardage in the game.

what does the electoral college have to do with congressional races?
 
True, you don't seem to comprehend the intent of those who gave us the EC.

Public school?


Easy, skippy, public school used to be an above average education.....
 
Back
Top Bottom