(12-24-2016 01:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  good grief, more libturd think.

Has nothing to do with Libertarians.

(12-24-2016 01:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How in the world do you believe you can "withhold" demographic stats of residencies?

It just means that the people who come up with the boundaries aren't allowed to take demographics into consideration.

This would be a great idea for California. No sense all 55 or whatever number of electorates going for one candidate.

(12-24-2016 01:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  So tell me how you would draw congressional district boundaries?

There is only one correct way to draw the districts: you must entirely withhold the demographic statistics of the state's residences, and form the districts boundaries only with regard to the spatial distribution of population within the state.

Sorry, but if you do that then you could create districts within a state that lessens the likelihood of a minority being elected, so the Justice Department isn't likely to approve it. The DOJ mandates that state's consider racial demographics. Mississippi, for example, had to create a district wherein black candidates have a huge advantage. It doesn't keep a white person from running, but there is little chance to be elected.

FWIW, I agree that districts should be drawn according to population,as well as making them as close to the same size as possible.

(12-24-2016 01:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  So tell me how you would draw congressional district boundaries?

There is only one correct way to draw the districts: you must entirely withhold the demographic statistics of the state's residences, and form the districts boundaries only with regard to the spatial distribution of population within the state.

Which just happens to violate federal law.

Let's see what the Constitution says, shall we;

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(12-24-2016 07:55 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  Let's see what the Constitution says, shall we;

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Yep. That pesky constitution thing getting in the way of Bison's utopia again.

(12-24-2016 07:55 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  Let's see what the Constitution says, shall we;

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In addition to the general Constitutional provisions, there are a number of issues that must be taken into consideration when drawing district lines, not the least of which are questions surrounding the proposed district's racial makeup. And for 50 years, certain states must submit all redistricting plans to the federal government for approval. I have found their guidelines to be somewhat contradictory, but that's another matter.

http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

Bison's expressed displeasure over the way Minnesota's lines are drawn seems to be a bit of howling at the moon though. I don't know how else you would draw the lines for a state wherein 60% of the population lives in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. In order to achieve districts of equal population, some districts would naturally have to be wholly within those cities and suburbs. Otherwise you would have bizarre districts carving up the metro area so that several districts would have a sliver before weaving its way into the heart of the state. I don't know what her specific objections are, but the state seems to be rationally drawn.

The way I read it is, each state legislature may, by majority vote, decide the method of choosing electoral college votes. As long as it does not exceed the number allowed through the US. Constitution for that state. The problem is it's an invitation for continuous congressional gerrymandering. A process which decides the drawing up of congressional districts. And remember "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". In other words other states could decide to do the same thing.

(12-24-2016 08:32 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 07:55 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  Let's see what the Constitution says, shall we;

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In addition to the general Constitutional provisions, there are a number of issues that must be taken into consideration when drawing district lines, not the least of which are questions surrounding the proposed district's racial makeup. And for 50 years, certain states must submit all redistricting plans to the federal government for approval. I have found their guidelines to be somewhat contradictory, but that's another matter.

http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

Bison's expressed displeasure over the way Minnesota's lines are drawn seems to be a bit of howling at the moon though. I don't know how else you would draw the lines for a state wherein 60% of the population lives in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. In order to achieve districts of equal population, some districts would naturally have to be wholly within those cities and suburbs. Otherwise you would have bizarre districts carving up the metro area so that several districts would have a sliver before weaving its way into the heart of the state. I don't know what her specific objections are, but the state seems to be rationally drawn.

I see nothing in the Constitution for provisions to draw up districts based on racial makeup. Districts, as you point out, are drawn due to population. This of course ensures that all people in the state get equal representation.

(12-24-2016 08:45 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The way I read it is, each state legislature may, by majority vote, decide the method of choosing electoral college votes. As long as it does not exceed the number allowed through the US. Constitution for that state. The problem is it's an invitation for continuous congressional gerrymandering. A process which decides the drawing up of congressional districts. And remember "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". In other words other states could decide to do the same thing.

That's true, though I can't see it as being a long term benefit to either party. Clinton's lead in the popular vote will probably create a push from the left to eliminate the Electoral College, but it just isn't going to happen. There are 50 states and 48 of them aren't going to be willing to cede their interests to New York and California.

(12-24-2016 08:52 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 08:45 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The way I read it is, each state legislature may, by majority vote, decide the method of choosing electoral college votes. As long as it does not exceed the number allowed through the US. Constitution for that state. The problem is it's an invitation for continuous congressional gerrymandering. A process which decides the drawing up of congressional districts. And remember "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". In other words other states could decide to do the same thing.

That's true, though I can't see it as being a long term benefit to either party. Clinton's lead in the popular vote will probably create a push from the left to eliminate the Electoral College, but it just isn't going to happen. There are 50 states and 48 of them aren't going to be willing to cede their interests to New York and California.

I agree and it would also be unconstitutional.

(12-24-2016 09:03 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 08:52 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 08:45 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The way I read it is, each state legislature may, by majority vote, decide the method of choosing electoral college votes. As long as it does not exceed the number allowed through the US. Constitution for that state. The problem is it's an invitation for continuous congressional gerrymandering. A process which decides the drawing up of congressional districts. And remember "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". In other words other states could decide to do the same thing.

That's true, though I can't see it as being a long term benefit to either party. Clinton's lead in the popular vote will probably create a push from the left to eliminate the Electoral College, but it just isn't going to happen. There are 50 states and 48 of them aren't going to be willing to cede their interests to New York and California.

I agree and it would also be unconstitutional.

Indeed, but that won't stop them from wasting a lot of time and effort (not to mention other people's time and money) trying to get it done.

(12-24-2016 09:06 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 09:03 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 08:52 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 08:45 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The way I read it is, each state legislature may, by majority vote, decide the method of choosing electoral college votes. As long as it does not exceed the number allowed through the US. Constitution for that state. The problem is it's an invitation for continuous congressional gerrymandering. A process which decides the drawing up of congressional districts. And remember "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". In other words other states could decide to do the same thing.

That's true, though I can't see it as being a long term benefit to either party. Clinton's lead in the popular vote will probably create a push from the left to eliminate the Electoral College, but it just isn't going to happen. There are 50 states and 48 of them aren't going to be willing to cede their interests to New York and California.

I agree and it would also be unconstitutional.

Indeed, but that won't stop them from wasting a lot of time and effort (not to mention other people's time and money) trying to get it done.

So the Gruber's send their money in for a losing cause. What's new about that? How much money did they send to Jill Stein?