(11-11-2016 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I was hoping constitutional amendments could be approved by national popular vote. Clearly not the case.


So there seems to be no way to do it, even if it's the right thing to do. Which it is.

Indeed that is not the case, and rightfully so.

(11-11-2016 03:22 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  gerrymandering is heavily in the GOP's favor. that is beyond fact. the GOP typically gets 30 more house seats than the dems when their total vote counts are close to each other. in 2012 the dems had more total house votes but 26 fewer seats.

studies have shown if a dozen or so republican controlled states awarded their EC votes by congressional district, then the democrats would be unable to win the EC without winning the popular vote by 10 million votes.

Who came up with the shapes/borders of the 50 states? GERRYMANDERING, I tell you!

not really. All the states were designed based on the issue of the day and were all created quite fairly.

(11-11-2016 03:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  So gerrymandering is okay when it is done to prevent the GOP from gerrymandering? um...

NC Dems mastered Gerrymandering until 2010 when the NC GOPers followed their lead.

Doesn't the Civil Rights act mandate gerrymandering?

Is gerrymandering ok to ensure minority groups have representation?

(11-11-2016 03:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:22 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  gerrymandering is heavily in the GOP's favor. that is beyond fact. the GOP typically gets 30 more house seats than the dems when their total vote counts are close to each other. in 2012 the dems had more total house votes but 26 fewer seats.

studies have shown if a dozen or so republican controlled states awarded their EC votes by congressional district, then the democrats would be unable to win the EC without winning the popular vote by 10 million votes.

Who came up with the shapes/borders of the 50 states? GERRYMANDERING, I tell you!

not really. All the states were designed based on the issue of the day and were all created quite fairly.

Uhhh, it's called a joke.

(11-11-2016 02:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  If you don't like Gerrymandering look in the mirror. A lot of states across the South East don't have much choice than to pack all their Dem/Libs into a few districts. Math tells us that will make things more difficult for Dem/Lib candidates in the other districts, but math has never been the Dem/Libs strong suit. It wasn't Republican lawmakers and Conservative judges passing these decisions. The Democrat Party shouldn't hate the Play'a when they came up with the rules for the Game.

Exactly.

As near often as not, the gerrymandered convoluted district is contorted to provide a district that will go with a minority candidate or a counter to the prevailing demographic breakdown.

Need an example? See Scott, Bobby. Va's 3rd District.

(11-11-2016 03:25 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:26 PM)Kronke Wrote:  No, thank you. Not interested in amending the Constitution for sore losers that had no problem with the system until after the fact.

This.

I mean, c'mon folks.

Do you all remember the riots and protests and editorializing about changing the Constitution and getting rid of the electoral college after the elections in '92,'96, '08 and '12?!?


Yea, neither do I.

Suck it up, buttercup.

I specifically recall cons on this very forum arguing against the electoral college because Obama only won 51% percent of the vote but got over 100 more votes.

49R - But as you know, that's impossible, as well more than 1/4th the states have incentive to keep the system as is.


Kronke,

Not rightful, at all. It's just what the constitution says. But neither you, nor anyone, can come up with a logical argument that justifies what it says.

(11-11-2016 03:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  So gerrymandering is okay when it is done to prevent the GOP from gerrymandering? um...

Pretty much sounds that way...

(11-11-2016 03:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R - But as you know, that's impossible, as well more than 1/4th the states have incentive to keep the system as is.


Kronke,

Not rightful, at all. It's just what the constitution says. But neither you, nor anyone, can come up with a logical argument that justifies what it says.

that is incorrect. Posters have explained why we have it and why we keep it. They are logical, you just do not like them

Please tell me your argument, then.

(11-11-2016 02:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd like to ditch it just because it kinda makes the elections boil down to a few select states and that's it. The GOP doesn't even try in places like California and New York, and the Dems don't even try in Texas etc. A lot of the most populated states in the union essentially mean nothing to deciding the President because it's winner takes all and it's viewed as a lost cause to even try to win hearts and minds in certain states. Either go by the popular vote or do proportional delegation of the electoral votes.

But honestly if we ditched it that practice would be amplified. THe major cities would get attention and that's about it.

I think the way it's set up is fine because State can, if they choose, proportion their delegates however they want. If your big state is not getting any attention to what Maine and Nebraska do.

(11-11-2016 03:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R - But as you know, that's impossible, as well more than 1/4th the states have incentive to keep the system as is.


Kronke,

Not rightful, at all. It's just what the constitution says. But neither you, nor anyone, can come up with a logical argument that justifies what it says.

The logical argument is this.... 51% of people can instantly and almost without process deny rights to 49% of people based on a single vote and no process beyond that.

(11-11-2016 03:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Please tell me your argument, then.

I have, many times in many posts.

Different geographic regions deserve some say in government in a nation as big and diverse as ours. Without the electoral college and congressional districts, the 95 to 5 margins in NY, LA, Philly, etc would dominate the rest of the country, that composes 90% of the land mass. People that live together tend to vote in blocs especially on a national level. The people of Wyoming and Alaska deserve at least a small drop of representation compared to the population titans of NY and CA.

Does it give smaller areas a bigger say than what they would be entitled too under 1 person 1 vote, absolutely. But each state, no matter the size deserves some representation.

I don't want the entire nation to be Nevada where elections depend entirely on how many voters Clark county can muster.

(11-11-2016 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:25 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:26 PM)Kronke Wrote:  No, thank you. Not interested in amending the Constitution for sore losers that had no problem with the system until after the fact.

This.

I mean, c'mon folks.

Do you all remember the riots and protests and editorializing about changing the Constitution and getting rid of the electoral college after the elections in '92,'96, '08 and '12?!?


Yea, neither do I.

Suck it up, buttercup.

I specifically recall cons on this very forum arguing against the electoral college because Obama only won 51% percent of the vote but got over 100 more votes.

Doggonit!

I ALMOST made it to my fourth birthday without a single neg rep point.

And guess who decided to step up and spoil the kids party?!?


Interestingly enough, spewing forth the same reasoning as this post above.

Jonnyzero " SPECIFICALLY recalls cons on this very forum" arguing about zerO's last election.


But he joined more than 7 months later.

About 6 months after I got here and posited my first virgin post.

You must have done an extensive, intrusive and vigorous digging into posts going back many many months to find all that out.

Thanks for the neg rep, though. Finally popped that cherry.

Clod.

(11-11-2016 03:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R - But as you know, that's impossible, as well more than 1/4th the states have incentive to keep the system as is.
Kronke,
Not rightful, at all. It's just what the constitution says. But neither you, nor anyone, can come up with a logical argument that justifies what it says.

Mpls, I know you millineals are p.o'd about this election and want to blame everyone in sight, but take a step away from the issues of the day and try to understand that the greatest country ever conceived by mankind was built upon this document. It is not something that should be trifled with.

I suggest you try to view where we've come from with an eye toward what this country looked like a short 240 years ago. Do a little research on the standard of living when this document was created to where we are now; then maybe you might want to show a little deference towards it.

Hmmm, perhaps he'll go back bring some of those threads to the top.

Bull,

So your solution is to make it so that 49% of people can instantly and almost without process deny rights to 51% of people based on a single vote and no process beyond that ???


solo,

It sounds like you favor land area higher than population.

So do you suggest we should be allocating votes based on how much land you own, instead of giving one vote to one person??

Quote:You must have done an extensive, intrusive and vigorous digging into posts going back many many months to find all that out.

He was on Comey's team reviewing those 650,000 emails on the dork's computer.

(11-11-2016 03:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R - But as you know, that's impossible, as well more than 1/4th the states have incentive to keep the system as is.


Kronke,

Not rightful, at all. It's just what the constitution says. But neither you, nor anyone, can come up with a logical argument that justifies what it says.

See: Papers, Federalist, say #68?

Might offer you some helpful insight and a bit of an education. They do a pretty good job making the argument.

(11-11-2016 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

It sounds like you favor land area higher than population.

So do you suggest we should be allocating votes based on how much land you own, instead of giving one vote to one person??

nope.

I prefer capping the margins so politicians cannot run up the score on their home terf and claim victory.

I prefer coalitions and people of different cultures and geographic areas coming together and coalescing around a leader.

I think we have something like that. Its called the Electoral college.

Yeah, thats it, that is was I prefer, as did our founding fathers.