(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Oh my.

(10-20-2014 02:02 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 01:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's concerning to think that one party has to have over a million more voters than the other party to get the same representation.

The politicians are not supposed to represent the parties but the individual voters.

Exactly. That's why it's upsetting when more people vote for one side more than the other and still get less representatives.

You simply substituted side for party and made the same claim. Each person votes for a single candidate, not a side.

I see what you are saying but when you vote for a person, you also vote for a set of ideas he represents based on party.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-20-2014 05:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 02:02 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 01:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's concerning to think that one party has to have over a million more voters than the other party to get the same representation.

The politicians are not supposed to represent the parties but the individual voters.

Exactly. That's why it's upsetting when more people vote for one side more than the other and still get less representatives.

You simply substituted side for party and made the same claim. Each person votes for a single candidate, not a side.

I see what you are saying but when you vote for a person, you also vote for a set of ideas he represents based on party.

Not always. The personal characteristics of the candidates can be very important, for better or for worse.

Also, some candidates will embrace certain parts of their party's platform while others will focus on different areas. Not all democrats are running away from Obama this election cycle, but Grimes certainly is. How can you say that the voters who vote for Grimes are voting for some broad set of ideals when the candidate they voted for is actively trying to distance herself from the most prominent representative of the national brand?

I can't say what all voters vote for. All I'm saying is that more people vote Democrat and get less representation for their troubles

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-20-2014 11:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I can't say what all voters vote for. All I'm saying is that more people vote Democrat and get less representation for their troubles

No, many people don't simply vote Democrat or Republican. They vote for individual candidates in individual races, not parties. If what you are saying was true, then you could figure out the Senate vote totals merely by adding up the House totals for the state. I'm willing to bet that this never works out.

Your candidate either wins or loses, but you are represented either way.

(10-20-2014 11:59 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I can't say what all voters vote for. All I'm saying is that more people vote Democrat and get less representation for their troubles

No, many people don't simply vote Democrat or Republican. They vote for individual candidates in individual races, not parties. If what you are saying was true, then you could figure out the Senate vote totals merely by adding up the House totals for the state. I'm willing to bet that this never works out.

Your candidate either wins or loses, but you are represented either way.

Well put. Simple things are usually simple, except, well, to the simple!

That's pretty good, I may make a bumper sticker outta that one...

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Would imagine they represent everyone as they always have, since the way of electing them changed.

(10-21-2014 02:47 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Would imagine they represent everyone as they always have, since the way of electing them changed.

Well technically yes. They do represent everyone. I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining it right or some of you are being deliberately obtuse.

(10-21-2014 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well technically yes. They do represent everyone. I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining it right or some of you are being deliberately obtuse.

That's actually not a technicality.

What you are describing is a national proportional representation system where everyone votes for one of two parties and congressional seats are distributed on that basis. That has nothing to do with the system currently in place. If you want to argue that is how the system should be set up, you have a lot more work to do. But merely pointing out that the current system does not match the results one would obtain with a national proportional system is meaningless because the current system is neither designed nor intended to do so.

If a Republicans in North and South Dakota eek out narrow victories while Democrats in Delaware and Vermont win in blowouts, the fact that more people voted for Democrats in the four states does not mean there should have been more Democrats elected than Republicans. It simply means that the Democrats won by higher margins of victory.

(10-21-2014 01:35 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well technically yes. They do represent everyone. I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining it right or some of you are being deliberately obtuse.

That's actually not a technicality.

What you are describing is a national proportional representation system where everyone votes for one of two parties and congressional seats are distributed on that basis. That has nothing to do with the system currently in place. If you want to argue that is how the system should be set up, you have a lot more work to do. But merely pointing out that the current system does not match the results one would obtain with a national proportional system is meaningless because the current system is neither designed nor intended to do so.

If a Republicans in North and South Dakota eek out narrow victories while Democrats in Delaware and Vermont win in blowouts, the fact that more people voted for Democrats in the four states does not mean there should have been more Democrats elected than Republicans. It simply means that the Democrats won by higher margins of victory.

That's not what I'm saying and not what the article I linked is saying. It's talking specifically what is happening within each state.

(10-15-2014 10:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There's never been a worse time to be a Democrat in a red state. Republicans now hold all the reins of power—the governorship and both houses of the state legislature—in 23 states. That's up from just nine before the 2010 elections. There are now more states under single-party control than at any time since 1944. And without even token Democratic opposition, Republicans have busted unions in Michigan and Wisconsin, passed draconian tax cuts in Kansas, and enacted sweeping new abortion restrictions across the nation.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014...nt-control

Is it a terrible thing when people pay less in taxes or babies get to live?

Fit, at this point I think you are the one being deliberately obtuse.

Each district selects one individual to be the Representative for that district. Each district's election is independent of the election in all the other districts. If the Representative wins with 100% of the vote or 50.01% of the vote or (three-way race) 33.34% of the vote -- So What. The election is still over and the winner is still one of the 435 Representatives serving in the House of Representatives. And those Representatives then cluster together in groups (called "political parties") and choose leaders. It's just not that complicated.

(10-21-2014 02:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 01:35 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well technically yes. They do represent everyone. I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining it right or some of you are being deliberately obtuse.

That's actually not a technicality.
What you are describing is a national proportional representation system where everyone votes for one of two parties and congressional seats are distributed on that basis. That has nothing to do with the system currently in place. If you want to argue that is how the system should be set up, you have a lot more work to do. But merely pointing out that the current system does not match the results one would obtain with a national proportional system is meaningless because the current system is neither designed nor intended to do so.
If a Republicans in North and South Dakota eek out narrow victories while Democrats in Delaware and Vermont win in blowouts, the fact that more people voted for Democrats in the four states does not mean there should have been more Democrats elected than Republicans. It simply means that the Democrats won by higher margins of victory.

That's not what I'm saying and not what the article I linked is saying. It's talking specifically what is happening within each state.

It's exactly what you are saying. That's the only way that referring to the vote totals for Republicans and Democrats makes sense. And there is a reason I chose the states I did--each only has a single representative. But if you want to go inside states with multiple representatives then its just the same thing on a smaller scale.

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

What effing difference does it make if that's what the people want?

(10-21-2014 03:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

What effing difference does it make if that's what the people want?

Majority rule is not always a good thing.

If we left our country up to majority rule, the South might still be segregated.

(10-21-2014 03:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 03:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

What effing difference does it make if that's what the people want?

Majority rule is not always a good thing.

If we left our country up to majority rule, then Obamacare wouldn't have been passed.

FIFY

(10-21-2014 03:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 03:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

What effing difference does it make if that's what the people want?

Majority rule is not always a good thing.

If we left our country up to majority rule, the South might still be segregated.

Absolutely...thus the reason for the creation of a bicameral legislature....i.e. House and Senate. The house is more representative of local views and the Senate is more reflective of majority views (on a state level)...thus the reason the houses can simultaneously be controlled by two different parties.