(11-09-2013 12:09 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

less of an advantage than the 6 hr voting lines in inner city districts. or the closing of polling stations on universities.

if the GOP wants to get the black vote ==> take up issues that are appealing to them

a gop winning an inner city has as much a chance as a dem in a rural bible belt district

Apparently the answer to my question would be embarrassing.

if being appealing to voters is an advantage then i dont know what to say

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

(11-08-2013 09:17 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Just to be clear here, I'm indicating election fraud by the billionaires and crooked politicians running this Country and Commonwealth.

Curious, this was a big concern for mach back in 2000 and 2004, now he's lost interest. Huh.

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

Back on topic. In Virginia the Republicans won 50.9% of the Congressional vote in 2012. Democrats won 49.1%. Republicans won 8 seats of 11. The 3rd district was created by the Democratically controlled General Assembly after the 1990 census. The specific reason for it's location and make-up was to elect an African-American. They were successful. Bobby Scott has been the only Congressman since its' creation. (Now Bobby is a good guy. When my mother was declared dead by the Social Security Administration, he resuscitated her, in a manner of speaking.) But in order to accomplish the fact of the election of an African-American with the standard allowable by our magnificent federal government, they gathered into the district any black who lived near the James River. The end result of what is gerrymandering was to create safe districts for Republicans in the 1st, 4th and 5th districts and to make the 2nd district a toss-up. Now the Republicans controlled the last 2 redistrictings and they proved that they are not nearly as stupid as they usually appear. They made no changes because just as with everything else the Democrats do there were unintended consequences and the Republicans were the beneficiaries of those consequences.

Now I don't know about other states but this is what happened in the Old Dominion. But I suspect that this may well be the same in other states where districts were carved out for specific purposes.

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

^^^^^^
but.....but.....but

-conservatives......

(11-09-2013 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:09 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

less of an advantage than the 6 hr voting lines in inner city districts. or the closing of polling stations on universities.

if the GOP wants to get the black vote ==> take up issues that are appealing to them

a gop winning an inner city has as much a chance as a dem in a rural bible belt district

Apparently the answer to my question would be embarrassing.

if being appealing to voters is an advantage then i dont know what to say

Hard to beat Santa Claus.

(11-09-2013 11:42 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  (That was before we watched americans flee on helicopters from Nixons peace with honor execution).

There's so much that is half-false or completely false in dcCid's comment and there's nothing to be gained in rehashng all of it. But it should be said that Nixon resigned from office about 8-9 months prior to the evacuation of Saigon. Even his most vehement critics and haters have never claimed that the helicopters-on-the-embassy-roof debacle would have happened if he had remained in office.

Not only were his comments half truths, he didn't address the statistical anomaly proving that something dirty went down.

I provided a 20 year history that proved fraud... not hyperbole.

I countered that it was a 40 year tradition versus 20. The GOP has a 2-1 control over every count and city on election stuff due to some VA law that the party of the Governor controls the elections at the local level.

I understand the fear in the GOP now has that democratic precincts will now have more equipment and fewer lines and less intimidating. I had a buddy voting in Fairfax last year who was told he had to produce a passport to vote - he told the GOP lady to show him the law where it said it.

So back to FF County. Even the Daily Kos says that Brian Schoeneman is an old school Republican versus a Rand Paul Republican, but time will tell.

Ever since wednesday morning there has been a 6K vote difference between the total absentee ballots cast and the total vote counts. See Attached pdf.

So let go your 20 year stuff and explain current arithmetic.

(11-09-2013 12:56 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

Back on topic. In Virginia the Republicans won 50.9% of the Congressional vote in 2012. Democrats won 49.1%. Republicans won 8 seats of 11. The 3rd district was created by the Democratically controlled General Assembly after the 1990 census. The specific reason for it's location and make-up was to elect an African-American. They were successful. Bobby Scott has been the only Congressman since its' creation. (Now Bobby is a good guy. When my mother was declared dead by the Social Security Administration, he resuscitated her, in a manner of speaking.) But in order to accomplish the fact of the election of an African-American with the standard allowable by our magnificent federal government, they gathered into the district any black who lived near the James River. The end result of what is gerrymandering was to create safe districts for Republicans in the 1st, 4th and 5th districts and to make the 2nd district a toss-up. Now the Republicans controlled the last 2 redistrictings and they proved that they are not nearly as stupid as they usually appear. They made no changes because just as with everything else the Democrats do there were unintended consequences and the Republicans were the beneficiaries of those consequences.

Now I don't know about other states but this is what happened in the Old Dominion. But I suspect that this may well be the same in other states where districts were carved out for specific purposes.

There is no surer way to be ignored around here than to present facts that fly into the face of the liberal wind.

(11-09-2013 04:49 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:56 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dixie.......

in 2012 the dems won the popular vote at the house level but the gop sent 32 more people to the house.

they are "killing it at the state level" because of all the voter suppression,voter disenfranchisement, & gerrymandering they do.

Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

Back on topic. In Virginia the Republicans won 50.9% of the Congressional vote in 2012. Democrats won 49.1%. Republicans won 8 seats of 11. The 3rd district was created by the Democratically controlled General Assembly after the 1990 census. The specific reason for it's location and make-up was to elect an African-American. They were successful. Bobby Scott has been the only Congressman since its' creation. (Now Bobby is a good guy. When my mother was declared dead by the Social Security Administration, he resuscitated her, in a manner of speaking.) But in order to accomplish the fact of the election of an African-American with the standard allowable by our magnificent federal government, they gathered into the district any black who lived near the James River. The end result of what is gerrymandering was to create safe districts for Republicans in the 1st, 4th and 5th districts and to make the 2nd district a toss-up. Now the Republicans controlled the last 2 redistrictings and they proved that they are not nearly as stupid as they usually appear. They made no changes because just as with everything else the Democrats do there were unintended consequences and the Republicans were the beneficiaries of those consequences.

Now I don't know about other states but this is what happened in the Old Dominion. But I suspect that this may well be the same in other states where districts were carved out for specific purposes.

There is no surer way to be ignored around here than to present facts that fly into the face of the liberal wind.

It's Saturday. Not glued to my computer.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. It was wrong when it was done in the 90's, and wrong today. You see similar districts across the south the concentrate black vote.

You have Austin, Texas, where the liberal city is parcelled out to three conservative districts.

(11-09-2013 05:49 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 04:49 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:56 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:38 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  Just a question. How much of this advantage is run up in black-majority districts where there is no Republican opposition?

That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

Back on topic. In Virginia the Republicans won 50.9% of the Congressional vote in 2012. Democrats won 49.1%. Republicans won 8 seats of 11. The 3rd district was created by the Democratically controlled General Assembly after the 1990 census. The specific reason for it's location and make-up was to elect an African-American. They were successful. Bobby Scott has been the only Congressman since its' creation. (Now Bobby is a good guy. When my mother was declared dead by the Social Security Administration, he resuscitated her, in a manner of speaking.) But in order to accomplish the fact of the election of an African-American with the standard allowable by our magnificent federal government, they gathered into the district any black who lived near the James River. The end result of what is gerrymandering was to create safe districts for Republicans in the 1st, 4th and 5th districts and to make the 2nd district a toss-up. Now the Republicans controlled the last 2 redistrictings and they proved that they are not nearly as stupid as they usually appear. They made no changes because just as with everything else the Democrats do there were unintended consequences and the Republicans were the beneficiaries of those consequences.

Now I don't know about other states but this is what happened in the Old Dominion. But I suspect that this may well be the same in other states where districts were carved out for specific purposes.

There is no surer way to be ignored around here than to present facts that fly into the face of the liberal wind.

It's Saturday. Not glued to my computer.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. It was wrong when it was done in the 90's, and wrong today. You see similar districts across the south the concentrate black vote.

You have Austin, Texas, where the liberal city is parcelled out to three conservative districts.

Jon we have twisted ourselves into pretzels or poorly drawn Congressional districts. The district of which I speak was created by Democrats to favor a black candidate who, realistically would be a Democrat. That was wrong. But today or more specifically when the last redistricting was done by a Republican legislature, if they had chosen to come up with a more rational design, they would have been branded racists for taking a seat from a black.

I personally would let redistricting be done by children. I wouldn't tell them where current representatives live. I wouldn't bring up any concept of ethnicity or sex or any other demographic. I would just tell them to create x number of near to equal areas. Period. We are all equal people but unfortunately to the powers that be both left and right, D or R, we are just pawns in their power game.

But more on the original topic, the skew in the numbers between elected representatives and total votes is created much more because of the minority districts created rather than venality on the part of the creators.

(11-09-2013 06:38 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 05:49 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 04:49 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:56 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

Back on topic. In Virginia the Republicans won 50.9% of the Congressional vote in 2012. Democrats won 49.1%. Republicans won 8 seats of 11. The 3rd district was created by the Democratically controlled General Assembly after the 1990 census. The specific reason for it's location and make-up was to elect an African-American. They were successful. Bobby Scott has been the only Congressman since its' creation. (Now Bobby is a good guy. When my mother was declared dead by the Social Security Administration, he resuscitated her, in a manner of speaking.) But in order to accomplish the fact of the election of an African-American with the standard allowable by our magnificent federal government, they gathered into the district any black who lived near the James River. The end result of what is gerrymandering was to create safe districts for Republicans in the 1st, 4th and 5th districts and to make the 2nd district a toss-up. Now the Republicans controlled the last 2 redistrictings and they proved that they are not nearly as stupid as they usually appear. They made no changes because just as with everything else the Democrats do there were unintended consequences and the Republicans were the beneficiaries of those consequences.

Now I don't know about other states but this is what happened in the Old Dominion. But I suspect that this may well be the same in other states where districts were carved out for specific purposes.

There is no surer way to be ignored around here than to present facts that fly into the face of the liberal wind.

It's Saturday. Not glued to my computer.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. It was wrong when it was done in the 90's, and wrong today. You see similar districts across the south the concentrate black vote.

You have Austin, Texas, where the liberal city is parcelled out to three conservative districts.

Jon we have twisted ourselves into pretzels or poorly drawn Congressional districts. The district of which I speak was created by Democrats to favor a black candidate who, realistically would be a Democrat. That was wrong. But today or more specifically when the last redistricting was done by a Republican legislature, if they had chosen to come up with a more rational design, they would have been branded racists for taking a seat from a black.

I personally would let redistricting be done by children. I wouldn't tell them where current representatives live. I wouldn't bring up any concept of ethnicity or sex or any other demographic. I would just tell them to create x number of near to equal areas. Period. We are all equal people but unfortunately to the powers that be both left and right, D or R, we are just pawns in their power game.

But more on the original topic, the skew in the numbers between elected representatives and total votes is created much more because of the minority districts created rather than venality on the part of the creators.

The Austin districts aren't impacted by minority districts. Neither is the Montrose/Heights districts in Houston. Its just a gerrymander.

But back to the OT. I wonder how Bolling would have done in this election?

yeah i really would like to see a new voting rights act requiring the drawing of district lines and voter ID requirements to be decided by a bi-partisan commission or an independent commission which is proven to not have a bias for either party.

cuz when you dont have those types of laws in place you get **** like this: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2..._ap_4.html

(11-10-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah i really would like to see a new voting rights act requiring the drawing of district lines and voter ID requirements to be decided by a bi-partisan commission or an independent commission which is proven to not have a bias for either party.

cuz when you dont have those types of laws in place you get **** like this: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2..._ap_4.html

yea, like that idea is not ripe for corruption.

(11-10-2013 02:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah i really would like to see a new voting rights act requiring the drawing of district lines and voter ID requirements to be decided by a bi-partisan commission or an independent commission which is proven to not have a bias for either party.

cuz when you dont have those types of laws in place you get **** like this: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2..._ap_4.html

yea, like that idea is not ripe for corruption.

hey the current system we have already sucks. there are ways to set up an independent commission or bi-partisan committee. we manage to keep widespread corruption out of the supreme court

(11-10-2013 02:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 02:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah i really would like to see a new voting rights act requiring the drawing of district lines and voter ID requirements to be decided by a bi-partisan commission or an independent commission which is proven to not have a bias for either party.

cuz when you dont have those types of laws in place you get **** like this: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2..._ap_4.html

yea, like that idea is not ripe for corruption.

hey the current system we have already sucks. there are ways to set up an independent commission or bi-partisan committee. we manage to keep widespread corruption out of the supreme court

Typical liberal comment, hey, the current system sucks, so lets change it for a worse system. Yes I remember Zero saying he would be the most transparent administration in history at the same time constructing a bunker administration. As far as the SC goes, you think as long as the corruption is not widespread or doesn't go against liberals it is ok. You are so FUBAR.

65 of 67 NRA endorsed candidates get elected, and I'm supposed to believe that McAuliffe somehow magically beat the odds in a year in which all of his buddies lost?

Nope, this is a cover to keep Obama from getting ran out and all of DC from being exposed.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/09/b...aces-86825

(11-09-2013 02:02 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I countered that it was a 40 year tradition versus 20. Ever since wednesday morning there has been a 6K vote difference between the total absentee ballots cast and the total vote counts. See Attached pdf.

So let go your 20 year stuff and explain current arithmetic.

So you're saying that VA is going back to it's Democratic ran, KKK & Jim Crowe days?




Only a fool would counter 20 year historical data with the previous 20 years and then tell me to explain "current arithmetic".

(11-10-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah i really would like to see a new voting rights act requiring the drawing of district lines and voter ID requirements to be decided by a bi-partisan commission or an independent commission which is proven to not have a bias for either party.

cuz when you dont have those types of laws in place you get **** like this: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2..._ap_4.html

A computer program could be written to handle redistricting. That would take all partisanship out of the equation. But NEITHER party really wants that because they both gerrymander.

Voter ID requirements are a no brainer. Most countries in Europe and also out neighbor Canada both require IDs so should the US. It's not too much to ask someone to get an ID before they vote. It's one step to ensure that those who are voting are entitled to do so.

(11-09-2013 06:38 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 05:49 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 04:49 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:56 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  That is a huge part of the problem. GOP Gerrymandering has concentrated all the Dem voters into a few districts, instead of spreading it out.

So instead of having 4 50-50 competitive districts and one 55% Dem District, you get one district that is 90% Dem, and 4 districts that are majority GOP.

It is disenfranchisement, and if the DOJ and the SCOTUS had a clue, they would toss all those maps out.

Back on topic. In Virginia the Republicans won 50.9% of the Congressional vote in 2012. Democrats won 49.1%. Republicans won 8 seats of 11. The 3rd district was created by the Democratically controlled General Assembly after the 1990 census. The specific reason for it's location and make-up was to elect an African-American. They were successful. Bobby Scott has been the only Congressman since its' creation. (Now Bobby is a good guy. When my mother was declared dead by the Social Security Administration, he resuscitated her, in a manner of speaking.) But in order to accomplish the fact of the election of an African-American with the standard allowable by our magnificent federal government, they gathered into the district any black who lived near the James River. The end result of what is gerrymandering was to create safe districts for Republicans in the 1st, 4th and 5th districts and to make the 2nd district a toss-up. Now the Republicans controlled the last 2 redistrictings and they proved that they are not nearly as stupid as they usually appear. They made no changes because just as with everything else the Democrats do there were unintended consequences and the Republicans were the beneficiaries of those consequences.

Now I don't know about other states but this is what happened in the Old Dominion. But I suspect that this may well be the same in other states where districts were carved out for specific purposes.

There is no surer way to be ignored around here than to present facts that fly into the face of the liberal wind.

It's Saturday. Not glued to my computer.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. It was wrong when it was done in the 90's, and wrong today. You see similar districts across the south the concentrate black vote.

You have Austin, Texas, where the liberal city is parcelled out to three conservative districts.

Jon we have twisted ourselves into pretzels or poorly drawn Congressional districts. The district of which I speak was created by Democrats to favor a black candidate who, realistically would be a Democrat. That was wrong. But today or more specifically when the last redistricting was done by a Republican legislature, if they had chosen to come up with a more rational design, they would have been branded racists for taking a seat from a black.

I personally would let redistricting be done by children. I wouldn't tell them where current representatives live. I wouldn't bring up any concept of ethnicity or sex or any other demographic. I would just tell them to create x number of near to equal areas. Period. We are all equal people but unfortunately to the powers that be both left and right, D or R, we are just pawns in their power game.

But more on the original topic, the skew in the numbers between elected representatives and total votes is created much more because of the minority districts created rather than venality on the part of the creators.

We let the Politicians pick the voters, instead of the voters picking the politicians

(11-09-2013 11:00 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  According to exit polling Cuccinelli won the race by big margins reaching a high percent of the key voting blocks of women, Latinos and Blacks.

If one were to believe stereotypes and whatnot, these are the people who don't especially like performing oral sex,