bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,834
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3315
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Supreme Court to take on issue of partisan gerrymanders
(06-19-2017 07:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: (06-19-2017 06:45 PM)bullet Wrote: (06-19-2017 06:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: (06-19-2017 06:16 PM)bullet Wrote: (06-19-2017 06:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but having districts on both sides gerrymandered to the point where the the other party can never win under any circumstances is not a positive thing. It's lead to both sides moving too far towards the fringes and away from the middle, where the vast majority of the country resides. The only thing that gets you thrown out of office in one of these crazy gerrymandered districts is when the loonies of either side decide the person in office isn't far enough to the left or right and they primary them for a whack job.
The computerized data has made them able to tailor things. But at least it is done by elected representatives.
Now maybe they would want it done by a panel, but its hard to get a non-partisan panel.
Well I think the start to solving this issue is something Trump has advocated and I couldn't agree with him more on, term limits. While not directly related to the issue of gerrymandering if you eliminated the ability for these guys to remaining in office for 20-30 years at least you'd consistently get fresh blood and new ideas.
I'm disturbed that now that the Republicans have the House and Senate, they have kind of gone quiet on term limits.
I mean come on you can't actually be shocked by it. No group in power will ever vote themselves out of power, which imposing term limits essentially would do. You are asking these people to vote themselves out of an extremely cushy job with insanely good benefits where you don't really have to do any actual work. Just human nature they aren't going to vote against their own self interests even if it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.
Grandfather clause. Then they don't have to vote against their self-interest.
It could even have partisan advantage. Apply the Grandfather clause after the last Republican wave.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2017 07:23 PM by bullet.)
|
|
06-19-2017 07:22 PM |
|
Kaplony
Palmetto State Deplorable
Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
|
RE: Supreme Court to take on issue of partisan gerrymanders
(06-19-2017 07:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote: Gee, I wonder why it avoids the beaches.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
For the same reason it avoids all of the sea islands except Wadmalaw. Too many white people.
|
|
06-19-2017 07:26 PM |
|
DavidSt
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,105
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 848
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
|
RE: Supreme Court to take on issue of partisan gerrymanders
(06-19-2017 04:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (06-19-2017 03:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote: (06-19-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote: (06-19-2017 03:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Our Senate rep was Blanche Lincoln until the Republicans redrew the lines to make Mark Pryor our Senate rep until he lost to Tom Cotton. Little Rock, Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Pine Bluff are all Democrat heavy voters. There are a lot of voters that vote Democrats who are different races. Sometimes we feel that the Republican buffoons in the house and Senate really do not work for all of us who did not vote for them.
So you know how a bunch of us felt the past 8 years with the buffoon y'all put in the White House.
We were put in this position for the past 8 years because of the Republicans of Arkansas did to us. The same thing for the past 30 years in Georgia and other states that are Republican held. Both sides have done this to their people for a very long time. The problem is we should vote on the person with Merit and not with the letter in front of their name like D, R or I.
No, the problem is that while republicans have no problem voting someone out of office, even someone as high up as Eric Cantor, the democrats wont.
And thats why the democratic primary can be rigged. Because the party of cucks wont do anything about it.
When republicans were told by a party official that the party, not the people, selected the nominee, the republicans revolted and nominated Trump.
When the DNC rigged the primary for Hillary, Bernie got his lakehouse, and many of his cuck supporters decided they would be with "her".
It wont change until the people on the inside force change. Right now, your party tells you how to vote, knows you will vote for them, and then you follow through and do it. THAT is where the problem is.
Not all Republicans get voted out. In Louisiana? How did that Klan leader David Dukes got elected into office as a Republican? There are people on the right as Republicans that should not hold office period like Dukes.
|
|
06-20-2017 04:46 AM |
|
john01992
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode
Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
|
RE: Supreme Court to take on issue of partisan gerrymanders
Bernie was considered too fringe for the dems. Whereas Trump was the sorta crazy the republicans were looking for. Let's not go stupid trying to compare the two as similar.
|
|
06-20-2017 05:28 AM |
|
hburg
Moderator
Posts: 10,015
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 269
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Make An Impact...
|
RE: Supreme Court to take on issue of partisan gerrymanders
The issue really isn't gerrymandering. The issue is a failure of one party to convince an electorate they are worth voting for, where the others have convinced. You will always have strong support in areas, but those areas can change.
|
|
06-20-2017 06:24 AM |
|