Pennsylvania Court Redraws Voting Map[W:25]

From Reuters, here: Pennsylvania Court Redraws Voting Map

Excerpt:

Pennsylvania’s top court on Monday unveiled a new map carving out the state’s U.S. congressional voting districts, imposing a plan it said was based on “traditional criteria” after rejecting a proposal drawn up by Republican lawmakers as unconstitutional.

The state Supreme Court had ruled that the Republican plan effectively marginalized likely Democratic voters. As a result, the Republicans have a more than 2-1 advantage in the state’s U.S. House of Representatives delegation, even though the number of registered Republicans and Democrats in Pennsylvania is roughly even.

The new map "is composed of congressional districts which follow the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness, contiguity, equality of population, and respect for the integrity of political subdivisions," the court's order said.

Click to expand...

This lower court decision could give pointers (to the states) in the matter of voting-gerrymandering that redistricts votes according to party-preferences. Which is an abomination as regards democratic rights of the popular-vote, and must be corrected in the US.

Only the popular-vote in all elections except one (the presidency) prevails in America. It is unfortunate that we, the sheeple, have let for so long states the right to reapportion voting districts in favor of either-party to happen. And thus allowing more easily party-dominance of the vote.

So, it is now up to the Supremes to impose upon the states the principle of no-redistricting of votes to suit any given party's voting preferences. Once their decision is made, and it is due soon enough, then fair reapportionment of districts finally becomes the Law of the Land. And not whichever voting-contrivance employed by a political-party in power at the state level.

(Do we finally understand how deviousness can lead to party-domination of politics in America, or do we finally need a Supreme Court decision to show us the way?)

Next Step?
*Finding a way to correct a defect of the Constitution that was forcibly-entered at its inception in 1787. And then Amendment 12 in 1804. The country was still in its infancy.
*That is, the fact that the results of the popular-vote do not necessarily reflect the voting pattern of the Electoral College as the EC was in fact constituted in each state.
*Which resulted, five times in history and twice in the past twenty-years, in the Electoral College having elected the loser of the popular-vote.
*Which is anti-democratic (small "d"!) and should not occur in any Real Democracy.

The EC should be done away with - but unfortunately since it is qualified in the original Constitution and then again by Amendment 12, annulling it would be extremely difficult.

What can be done, therefore, is - for "show purposes" - that the Electoral College be mandated by the Supreme Court to reflect its votes in direct-proportion to the popular-vote in each state. (Which, now finally, should be itself automatically reflected more fairly due to the end of "gerrymandering" should such be decided by the Supreme Court.)

(And, please, no BS about the US not being a "democracy" but a "republic"*. Which is like saying that cars should be state-taxed as are horse-drawn carriages because both are "horse-powered"!)

Why one should not be afraid of a confusion between democracy and republic. Here is why (from Diffen › Social Sciences › Civics):

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority. Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government.

This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the features of a republic.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

From Reuters, here: Pennsylvania Court Redraws Voting Map

Excerpt:

This lower court decision could give pointers (to the states) in the matter of voting-gerrymandering that redistricts votes according to party-preferences. Which is an abomination as regards democratic rights of the popular-vote, and must be corrected in the US.

Only the popular-vote in all elections except one (the presidency) prevails in America. It is unfortunate that we, the sheeple, have let for so long states the right to reapportion voting districts in favor of either-party to happen. And thus allowing more easily party-dominance of the vote.

So, it is now up to the Supremes to impose upon the states the principle of no-redistricting of votes to suit any given party's voting preferences. Once their decision is made, and it is due soon enough, then fair reapportionment of districts finally becomes the Law of the Land. And not whichever voting-contrivance employed by a political-party in power at the state level.

(Do we finally understand how deviousness can lead to party-domination of politics in America, or do we finally need a Supreme Court decision to show us the way?)

Next Step?
*Finding a way to correct a defect of the Constitution that was forcibly-entered at its inception in 1787. And then Amendment 12 in 1804. The country was still in its infancy.
*That is, the fact that the results of the popular-vote do not necessarily reflect the voting pattern of the Electoral College as the EC was in fact constituted in each state.
*Which resulted, five times in history and twice in the past twenty-years, in the Electoral College having elected the loser of the popular-vote.
*Which is anti-democratic (small "d"!) and should not occur in any Real Democracy.

The EC should be done away with - but unfortunately since it is qualified in the original Constitution and then again by Amendment 12, annulling it would be extremely difficult.

What can be done, therefore, is - for "show purposes" - that the Electoral College be mandated by the Supreme Court to reflect its votes in direct-proportion to the popular-vote in each state. (Which, now finally, should be itself automatically reflected more fairly due to the end of "gerrymandering" should such be decided by the Supreme Court.)

(And, please, no BS about the US not being a "democracy" but a "republic"*. Which is like saying that cars should be state-taxed as are horse-drawn carriages because both are "horse-powered"!)

Why one should not be afraid of a confusion between democracy and republic. Here is why (from Diffen › Social Sciences › Civics):

Click to expand...

The electoral college is there for a reason and will stay, for as long as it is required to.

On the other hand, this gerrymandering issue is the same as it has always been. When we think its been finished with, I can bet that its going to rear its ugly head in one form or another.

Oborosen said:

The electoral college is there for a reason and will stay, for as long as it is required to.

On the other hand, this gerrymandering issue is the same as it has always been. When we think its been finished with, I can bet that its going to rear its ugly head in one form or another.

Click to expand...

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 68, told us the chief reason was to protect the nation against a foreign adversary installing one of its own creatures in our highest office. That is what the Electoral College was suppose to do for the people in exchange for denying them the direct vote for president.

It failed to do that so it has failed in its chief purpose.

When the roof overhead is suppose to keep you dry, and the roof caves in and the house gets soaked damaging your possessions, you get a new roof.

haymarket said:

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 68, told us the chief reason was to protect the nation against a foreign adversary installing one of its own creatures in our highest office. That is what the Electoral College was suppose to do for the people in exchange for denying them the direct vote for president.

It failed to do that so it has failed in its chief purpose.

When the roof overhead is suppose to keep you dry, and the roof caves in and the house gets soaked damaging your possessions, you get a new roof.

Click to expand...

Seeing as Hillary didn't win the presidency. It seems to have done its job just fine.

Oborosen said:

Seeing as Hillary didn't win the presidency. It seems to have done its job just fine.

Click to expand...

That was NOT the reason for the Electoral College according to Hamilton. Your personal reaction is purely based on your own narrow selfish politics and you disregard the reality that the Electoral College FAILED to do its job as intended.

haymarket said:

That was NOT the reason for the Electoral College according to Hamilton. Your personal reaction is purely based on your own narrow selfish politics and you disregard the reality that the Electoral College FAILED to do its job as intended.

Click to expand...

Seeing as no one has been able to supply solid evidence that it failed. I will keep your opinion for consideration.

Oborosen said:

Seeing as no one has been able to supply solid evidence that it failed. I will keep your opinion for consideration.

Click to expand...

Trump in the White House refusing to do anything about the Russian attack on our system after he was elected with their aid and help is the solid evidence.

Oborosen said:

Seeing as no one has been able to supply solid evidence that it failed. I will keep your opinion for consideration.

Click to expand...

Well they voted in Trump who clearly was not fit for the job, both in terms of experience and in terms of the necessary skills required, because they were too scared to go against the popular votes of their states. If the electoral college is just going to rubber stamp what the people want regardless of the qualities of the person, what's the point of them?

Oborosen said:

Seeing as Hillary didn't win the presidency. It seems to have done its job just fine.

Click to expand...

That's not what your King Trump said after the 2012 elections.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ectoral-college-disaster-2012-tweet/93575326/

Oborosen said:

Seeing as no one has been able to supply solid evidence that it failed. I will keep your opinion for consideration.

Click to expand...

Trump's inaction against Russia is solid proof he wants more of their help in 2018 and 2020.

Lafayette said:

From Reuters, here: Pennsylvania Court Redraws Voting Map

Excerpt:

This lower court decision could give pointers (to the states) in the matter of voting-gerrymandering that redistricts votes according to party-preferences. Which is an abomination as regards democratic rights of the popular-vote, and must be corrected in the US.

Only the popular-vote in all elections except one (the presidency) prevails in America. It is unfortunate that we, the sheeple, have let for so long states the right to reapportion voting districts in favor of either-party to happen. And thus allowing more easily party-dominance of the vote.

So, it is now up to the Supremes to impose upon the states the principle of no-redistricting of votes to suit any given party's voting preferences. Once their decision is made, and it is due soon enough, then fair reapportionment of districts finally becomes the Law of the Land. And not whichever voting-contrivance employed by a political-party in power at the state level.

(Do we finally understand how deviousness can lead to party-domination of politics in America, or do we finally need a Supreme Court decision to show us the way?)

Next Step?
*Finding a way to correct a defect of the Constitution that was forcibly-entered at its inception in 1787. And then Amendment 12 in 1804. The country was still in its infancy.
*That is, the fact that the results of the popular-vote do not necessarily reflect the voting pattern of the Electoral College as the EC was in fact constituted in each state.
*Which resulted, five times in history and twice in the past twenty-years, in the Electoral College having elected the loser of the popular-vote.
*Which is anti-democratic (small "d"!) and should not occur in any Real Democracy.

The EC should be done away with - but unfortunately since it is qualified in the original Constitution and then again by Amendment 12, annulling it would be extremely difficult.

What can be done, therefore, is - for "show purposes" - that the Electoral College be mandated by the Supreme Court to reflect its votes in direct-proportion to the popular-vote in each state. (Which, now finally, should be itself automatically reflected more fairly due to the end of "gerrymandering" should such be decided by the Supreme Court.)

(And, please, no BS about the US not being a "democracy" but a "republic"*. Which is like saying that cars should be state-taxed as are horse-drawn carriages because both are "horse-powered"!)

Why one should not be afraid of a confusion between democracy and republic. Here is why (from Diffen › Social Sciences › Civics):

Click to expand...

Another dumb thread whining about the EC...

haymarket said:

Trump in the White House refusing to do anything about the Russian attack on our system after he was elected with their aid and help is the solid evidence.

Click to expand...

Actually no, its your opinion and until we actually see proof. It will remain as so.

But seeing as the actual puppet with foreign interest didn't get the seat. We can see that the electoral college actually still performs it duty rather well.

Aristaeus said:

Well they voted in Trump who clearly was not fit for the job, both in terms of experience and in terms of the necessary skills required, because they were too scared to go against the popular votes of their states. If the electoral college is just going to rubber stamp what the people want regardless of the qualities of the person, what's the point of them?

Click to expand...

Seeing as Trump was perfectly capable of taking the position. The electoral college still did its job rather well.

Praxas said:

That's not what your King Trump said after the 2012 elections.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ectoral-college-disaster-2012-tweet/93575326/

Click to expand...

He is entitled to his opinion on the subject, but if digging back almost a decade is all you can do. Then its obvious that I really don't need to care either way.

This whole bitch fest over the electoral college is the same thing its always been. People love democracy, up until it stops working for them.
We know why Trump didn't like that the electoral college made their judgment and it was because Obama got his second term. Basically the same reason all these children are crying about Trump winning last election.

My suggestion would be a small glass of milk and a nap, if they want to keep acting like this.

Praxas said:

Trump's inaction against Russia is solid proof he wants more of their help in 2018 and 2020.

Click to expand...

Claiming its proof, does not in fact prove that it is proof.

But if inaction is proof of collusion, then why didn't Obama have anything done to stop this before the election was through?

Oborosen said:

Actually no, its your opinion and until we actually see proof. It will remain as so.

But seeing as the actual puppet with foreign interest didn't get the seat. We can see that the electoral college actually still performs it duty rather well.

Click to expand...

In the end, you and the rest of the Trump apologists will have a mountain of proof that even they cannot deny when Mueller finishes his assigned task.

You claim that the EC performed well. Can you provide even a single state where there is any evidence that they electors there actually discussed the responsibility that Hamilton stated was their chief one - to protect the nation against a foreign adversary from installing a creature of their own to our highest office?

One. Just one.

haymarket said:

In the end, you and the rest of the Trump apologists will have a mountain of proof that even they cannot deny when Mueller finishes his assigned task.

You claim that the EC performed well. Can you provide even a single state where there is any evidence that they electors there actually discussed the responsibility that Hamilton stated was their chief one - to protect the nation against a foreign adversary from installing a creature of their own to our highest office?

One. Just one.

Click to expand...

Your asking for information that would be completely arbitrary to the discussion.

This is the same fallacy you keep getting called out for over and over again haymarket.

Oborosen said:

Your asking for information that would be completely arbitrary to the discussion.

This is the same fallacy you keep getting called out for over and over again haymarket.

Click to expand...

Not at all- I simply asked YOU for YOUR information to support YOUR claim that YOU made.

We can see that the electoral college actually still performs it duty rather well.

Click to expand...

In Federalist 68, Founder Alexander Hamilton was trying to sell the nation on supporting the Electoral College rather than direct popular vote for th President. He stated that the chief threat to our election process and government was a foreign adversary trying to place a creature of its own in our highest office. That is what Hamilton told the country the EC would protect us from. So simply provide evidence that any of the fifty state electors even discussed that when they met and voted.

here it is for you

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.

Click to expand...

So show us where the EC did its job well as you claim they did by doing just what Hamilton promised the nation they would do.

Why can't you do that?

haymarket said:

Not at all- I simply asked YOU for YOUR information to support YOUR claim that YOU made.



In Federalist 68, Founder Alexander Hamilton was trying to sell the nation on supporting the Electoral College rather than direct popular vote for th President. He stated that the chief threat to our election process and government was a foreign adversary trying to place a creature of its own in our highest office. That is what Hamilton told the country the EC would protect us from. So simply provide evidence that any of the fifty state electors even discussed that when they met and voted.

here it is for you


So show us where the EC did its job well as you claim they did by doing just what Hamilton promised the nation they would do.

Why can't you do that?

Click to expand...

Because we can see that it still works, just as much as swing states still have their own bend. They take their own legislation and weigh it, then make their ruling and the ruling came out as it did.
What you are asking, requires that I stalk each representatives social media. In order to pick what they decided on the day of the ruling, or at most to be an actual mind reader.

We had the ability to watch in on their ruling and it came out just as well as when they ruled in 2012.

Or are you trying to arbitrarily throw a hint that they should have stopped Trump there, when they had the chance?
Because no inclination existed.

faithful_servant said:

Another dumb thread whining about the EC...

Click to expand...

You know how it is. Democracy is only great, when it does what you want it to.

If not, then cry, cry, cry...

Oborosen said:

Because we can see that it still works, just as much as swing states still have their own bend. They take their own legislation and weigh it, then make their ruling and the ruling came out as it did.
What you are asking, requires that I stalk each representatives social media. In order to pick what they decided on the day of the ruling, or at most to be an actual mind reader.

We had the ability to watch in on their ruling and it came out just as well as when they ruled in 2012.

Or are you trying to arbitrarily throw a hint that they should have stopped Trump there, when they had the chance?
Because no inclination existed.

Click to expand...

Why can't you show that the EC did what Hamilton claimed was their responsibility in protecting the nation against the CHIEF threat against our nation? How can you claim the EC system worked when you cannot even provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence that at least one of the fifty state elector meetings even discussed carrying out their responsibility in this area?

haymarket said:

Why can't you show that the EC did what Hamilton claimed was their responsibility in protecting the nation against the CHIEF threat against our nation? How can you claim the EC system worked when you cannot even provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence that at least one of the fifty state elector meetings even discussed carrying out their responsibility in this area?

Click to expand...

Because we can still see that they did their job...

Are you just not on earth anymore haymarket?
I mean you keep playing this game and you keep getting pegged for it.

Ending gerrymandering is the first step to getting America to function again.

Most Members of Congress should be more concerned about losing their seats to someone from the other party, than they are about being primary(ed) from someone with more extreme views (right or left)

There will always be safe seats for both parties, but the fewer safe seats there are, the more responsive Representatives will be to the voting public. This is what makes a democracy work.

Oborosen said:

Because we can still see that they did their job...

Are you just not on earth anymore haymarket?
I mean you keep playing this game and you keep getting pegged for it.

Click to expand...

Doing their job as Hamilton explained to the nation meant protecting our government from a foreign power placing a creature of their own in our highest office.

Why can't you provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence that they even discussed this - let alone did it?

You want to claim the EC did its job well - and you cannot even show that a single one of the fifty states even did what Hamilton stated was the chief reason why they exist in the first place.