Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

[The Evil Genius]

56 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The solution is to double or triple the size of Congress.   

 

I see your point.  I just think your plight is less egregious than the plight would be of a resident in Idaho if we went to a popular vote system. 

 

51 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Exactly.  A straight one person, one vote would result in heavy campaigning and catering to a dozen cities and screws what the rest of the country wants.

 

Maybe. But that rest of the country would be the less than majority (or plurality) of the vote and I don't buy that candidates would avoid campaigning there entirely.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

Maybe. But that rest of the country would be the less than majority (or plurality) of the vote and I don't buy that candidates would avoid campaigning there entirely.

So you think a candidate would give a crap about rural people and their desires at all?  

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

I just think your plight is less egregious than the plight would be of a resident in Idaho if we went to a popular vote system. 

 

The plight of having his vote count the same as everybody else's?  

 

52 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So you think a candidate would give a crap about rural people and their desires at all?  

 

Exactly as much as they care about an equal number of voters, anywhere else.  

[Kilmer17]

28 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

The plight of having his vote count the same as everybody else's?  

 

 

Exactly as much as they care about an equal number of voters, anywhere else.  

I’m saying that’s complete nonsense. Our system is not set up for his vote to be the same as someone in a different state.  

 

Not it sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.  

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I’m saying that’s complete nonsense. Our system is not set up for his vote to be the same as someone in a different state.  

 

Not it sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.  

 

Because you keep running back and forth between different topics and points?  

 

There's a a huge difference between "the current result of a long-ago decision is that a vote in Podunk is 30 (or some number) times as much as a vote in Los Angeles" and "it would be a gross injustice if both votes counted the same", you know. 

[Going Commando]

11 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I see your point.  I just think your plight is less egregious than the plight would be of a resident in Idaho if we went to a popular vote system.  

 

This is revealing of the mentality of the GoP on the issue.  You all see grievance in fairness because you think it's right that your votes count for more.

[Going Commando]

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Exactly.  A straight one person, one vote would result in heavy campaigning and catering to a dozen cities and screws what the rest of the country wants.

 

How many campaign trips do you think presidential candidates are making to Alaska and Idaho and Wyoming?

[PleaseBlitz]

14 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think you misunderstood me.  My point was that those states are purple in actuality (demographic make up) but that they are the states that were the most gerrymandered to favor Republicans in 2011.  They are the states most negatively effected by gerrymandering and I bet if you put non partisan districting on the ballot, each one would pass it.

 

I think you need more Dems in power to get it on the ballot. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

How many campaign trips do you think presidential candidates are making to Alaska and Idaho and Wyoming?

Why don't you ask Google and tell us?

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think you need more Dems in power to get it on the ballot.  

 

If Democrats campaigned on non-partisan districting, then you could trust them to put it on the ballot.  But otherwise a ballot initiative is probably going to have to come from an outside group, like it did in California.

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Why don't you ask Google and tell us?

 

Don't get mad at me for spiking that weak ass argument back in your face.

[Going Commando]

I'm in here playing 3D checkers and you guys are playing Rochambeau.

[Hersh]

11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So you think a candidate would give a crap about rural people and their desires at all?  

 

I get your point and don’t entirely disagree but I look at it in another way. How many states are actually competitive now? Think about a Dem living in a red state with GOP controlling local positions as well (and a GOP voter in a similar Dem state), their votes are essentially meaningless. A popular vote would make all these votes important. Candidates and political parties would look to boost their turnout in every state. That could definitely lead to candidates spending time in more states since winning 5 specific states wouldn’t matter any more. 

 

[Kilmer17]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

This is revealing of the mentality of the GoP on the issue.  You all see grievance in fairness because you think it's right that your votes count for more.

It's actually revealing your mentality on the isse.  You see every persons political belief as concrete and equal to their race.  It's one of the leftwings biggest faults.  You embrace your political leanings as your persona and assume everyone else does as well.  If you want equality (what you call fairness) in district lines, start with the states where the Dems are represented at a higher percentage than their vote.  You guys want to ignore or libsplain away the fact that CA has far more Dem reps than the percentage of votes received statewide.  But it's the truth.

[LadySkinsFan]

Every other election, state, local, and federal depend upon one person one vote, except the presidential election. That's just not congruent thought. The presidential election should also be one person one vote. The Electoral College has outlived its historical reason for existence, meaning the embrace of slavery as an economic system to get the Southern states to ratify the Constitution.

[Cooked Crack]

8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It's actually revealing your mentality on the isse.  You see every persons political belief as concrete and equal to their race.  It's one of the leftwings biggest faults.  You embrace your political leanings as your persona and assume everyone else does as well.  If you want equality (what you call fairness) in district lines, start with the states where the Dems are represented at a higher percentage than their vote.  You guys want to ignore or libsplain away the fact that CA has far more Dem reps than the percentage of votes received statewide.  But it's the truth.

Calling for receipts here. A citizens commission determines the map in CA.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

Calling for receipts here. A citizens commission determines the map in CA.

So?  IF a non partisan group designs boundaries that result in a disproportionate amount of Ds, is that better than the GOP doing it to benefit themselves?  If so, why?

[TheGreatBuzz]

35 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Don't get mad at me for spiking that weak ass argument back in your face

I said that because I am in a doctor waiting room on my phone waiting to get a steroid injection into my spinal cord so I'm a little busy to research it myself.  

[Cooked Crack]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

So?  IF a non partisan group designs boundaries that result in a disproportionate amount of Ds, is that better than the GOP doing it to benefit themselves?  If so, why?

So, no receipts. A non partisan group is not thinking about who is is safe and who can run. Politicians can literally change the map to benefit themselves. Move the lines so your possible primary or general opponent is now in a new district.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

So, no receipts. A non partisan group is not thinking about who is is safe and who can run. Politicians can literally change the map to benefit themselves. Move the lines so your possible primary or general opponent is now in a new district.

receipts?

 

So to try and understand, you're okay with a disproportionate representation, as long as it's not done by the party who benefits?

[Cooked Crack]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

So to try and understand, you're okay with a disproportionate representation, as long as it's not done by the party who benefits?

Receipts on CA being disproportionate. You chose a terrible example of CA. I'm cool with maps being drawn fairly. The less politics in a map the better.

 

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Receipts on CA being disproportionate. You chose a terrible example of CA. I'm cool with maps being drawn fairly. The less politics in a map the better.

 

CA has 53 Congressman.  39 Ds and 14 Rs.  That's 74 percent representation for Ds.  But Ds only received 62 percent of the total vote.  If CA was "fair", it would only have 32 D Congressman.  Not 39.

[Hersh]

The only way to get rid of disproportionate representation in the House of Reps is to do away with districts and do representation based on total state vote percentages. 

16 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

receipts?

 

So to try and understand, you're okay with a disproportionate representation, as long as it's not done by the party who benefits?

 

In some states it’s unavoidable to have skewed number of reps even with nonpartisan drawing if districts. The problem is when it’s a 53/47 type split that results in a 10/3 House split because the party in power couldn’t figure out how to make the state 11-2. 

 

I’m sure there is a percentage of a state, maybe it’s 60 percent one way, in which it’s tough to draw maps in an honest way that would make it proportional 

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

The only way to get rid of disproportionate representation in the House of Reps is to do away with districts and do representation based on total state vote percentages. 

 

In some states it’s unavoidable to have skewed number of reps even with nonpartisan drawing if districts. The problem is when it’s a 53/47 type split that results in a 10/3 House split because the party in power couldn’t figure out how to make the state 11-2. 

 

I’m sure there is a percentage of a state, maybe it’s 60 percent one way, in which it’s tough to draw maps in an honest way that would make it proportional 

The problem with that is that the majority of a Congressmans job is specific to their district.  We just focus on the nationwide issues because it's no fun to debate what Comstock is doing in the constituent services office.

[PleaseBlitz]

13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

CA has 53 Congressman.  39 Ds and 14 Rs.  That's 74 percent representation for Ds.  But Ds only received 62 percent of the total vote.  If CA was "fair", it would only have 32 D Congressman.  Not 39.

 

"Fair" may be relative.  California seems to be kind of close.  From what I'm seeing, D's got closer to 64% and Rs got 36%.  The seat distribution is 74% to 26%.

 

In contrast, Virginia has 11 House seats.  In the 2016 election, Dems got more votes than Rs, but Rs have 7 seats and Dems 4.  

 

In Pennsylvania, in 2016 Rs got 54% of the vote, yet hold nearly 3 times the number of seats as Ds.