To be fair, the earmuffs district was meant to unite two Native American communities so they'd be able to elect someone to represent their needs, as opposed to being split up and largely ignored.
To be fair, the earmuffs district was meant to unite two Native American communities so they'd be able to elect someone to represent their needs, as opposed to being split up and largely ignored.
That's still absurd. You intentionally gerrymandered it, in otherwords, to favor a particular minority.
If you're going to do that, you may as well just say, "Fuck it," and give them a representative by default.
To be fair, the earmuffs district was meant to unite two Native American communities so they'd be able to elect someone to represent their needs, as opposed to being split up and largely ignored.
That's still absurd. You intentionally gerrymandered it, in otherwords, to favor a particular minority.
If you're going to do that, you may as well just say, "Fuck it," and give them a representative by default.
Yet, that's current law.
What's the difference between slicing a continguious latino community into four pieces so majority white districts end up 75% white, 25% latino, thus making the latino's fucking irrelevant, and the bridging the two Native american communities? Why does the happenstance of their proximity give the latinos better votes than the Native Americans?
What's the difference between slicing a continguious latino community into four pieces so majority white districts end up 75% white, 25% latino, thus making the latino's fucking irrelevant, and the bridging the two Native american communities? Why does the happenstance of their proximity give the latinos better votes than the Native Americans?
You should use an ethnicity-blind process to divide districts, end of story. I mean, that doesn't seem ridiculous to you, that you have an element of acknowledged benign racism built into your district drawing process?
Ender, do you not get why having districts set up so you get 1 D district and 3 R districts all at 100% is better than 4 R Districts split 25/75% between Dem votes and GOP votes (or vice versa)?
Ender, do you not get why having districts set up so you get 1 D district and 3 R districts all at 100% is better than 4 R Districts split 25/75% between Dem votes and GOP votes (or vice versa)?
Having overly safe seats is always bad because it encourages extremism.
Then make every seat a toss-up or as close as can be managed given a state's leanings as a whole. Doesn't mean demographics shouldn't be taken into account at all.
Ender, do you not get why having districts set up so you get 1 D district and 3 R districts all at 100% is better than 4 R Districts split 25/75% between Dem votes and GOP votes (or vice versa)?
Having overly safe seats is always bad because it encourages extremism.
In a winner take all election system overly safe seats vs simply safe seats does not encourage extremism.
What matters is where the median voter is(and where then the median congresscritter is) and splitting to ensure representation does not necessarily move the median voter or congresscritter towards the extremes.
Ender, do you not get why having districts set up so you get 1 D district and 3 R districts all at 100% is better than 4 R Districts split 25/75% between Dem votes and GOP votes (or vice versa)?
Having overly safe seats is always bad because it encourages extremism.
In a winner take all election system overly safe seats vs simply safe seats does not encourage extremism.
What matters is where the median voter is(and where then the median congresscritter is) and splitting to ensure representation does not necessarily move the median voter or congresscritter towards the extremes.
The median voter stops mattering and the primary voters start mattering more if seats are very safe. If they are going to win unless they are murderous psychopaths, the party has an obvious reason to go extreme.
What's the difference between slicing a continguious latino community into four pieces so majority white districts end up 75% white, 25% latino, thus making the latino's fucking irrelevant, and the bridging the two Native american communities? Why does the happenstance of their proximity give the latinos better votes than the Native Americans?
You should use an ethnicity-blind process to divide districts, end of story. I mean, that doesn't seem ridiculous to you, that you have an element of acknowledged benign racism built into your district drawing process?
In a word, no. It's not like someone is telling minorities how to vote. All it does is make sure that minorities (ethnic and otherwise) have a stake and voice in the system.
Otherwise you could have large groups of people who dont have any say in government and know that their vote doesn't matter. You could go with full proportional representation but that has it's own set of problems(rotten Burroughs and having a kkk caucus in the house for example)
What's the difference between slicing a continguious latino community into four pieces so majority white districts end up 75% white, 25% latino, thus making the latino's fucking irrelevant, and the bridging the two Native american communities? Why does the happenstance of their proximity give the latinos better votes than the Native Americans?
You should use an ethnicity-blind process to divide districts, end of story. I mean, that doesn't seem ridiculous to you, that you have an element of acknowledged benign racism built into your district drawing process?
We tried not limited the contents of a district based on ethnicity and we ended up with districts designed to completely remove the effect of minority votes. So this is one of those "Yea, in theory I'd like to avoid it but in reality you have to be ignorant to suggest it" kind of things.
The second objection I would have is why the fuck do you think we have geographical districts in the first place? It is because Representative X is supposed to be a spokesman for the communities in his district. If a community is split among several different Reps it greatly reduces their influence to the point of irrelevance. Which kinda kills the "for the people," bit and replaces it with "for the people who get to decide which people actually matter."
Or have a nonpartisan board of experts do it like every other sane country.
The fact that state legislatures get to draw not only their own districts but those for Congress as well is possibly the biggest conflict of interest in modern politics.
Or have a nonpartisan board of experts do it like every other sane country.
The fact that state legislatures get to draw not only their own districts but those for Congress as well is possibly the biggest conflict of interest in modern politics.
Oh, c'mon, now, Carrot. What about the fact that Congressmen have immunity from insider trading? That the best way to get the biggest payout as a Congressman is to go into lobbying immediately after? Or the fact that campaigns have to be paid for with huge corporate donations?
I mean, it's certainly a huge conflict of interest, but I don't know that I would go so far as "biggest."
Yup. there's been a bill sitting in the hopper for what, eight years now, to try and fix it. Guess how much traction it's gotten?
One or two people bring it up every year saying "come on guys!" and the rest reply "yeah yeah we'll get around to it eventually"? Just a total guess.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Just wanted to say Elizabeth Warren is a baller, and I hope she mops the floor with Scott Brown in next year's election (not that he's a particularly horrible republican). I'm not sure if I should register to vote in MA for next year, or stick with an absentee ballot for CT so that way I can make super sure that Linda "WWE" McMahon doesn't set foot in capitol hill.
It's pretty much a sure thing that the Senate is going to flip now, and I don't see house getting back in democratic hands either... Just pray Obama wins the election.
Uh, I don't think we were really counting on Nelson to win. Besides, if we can take Nevada and Massachusetts, we can afford to lose three seats besides Nelson and still retain 51 votes.
It's pretty much a sure thing that the Senate is going to flip now,
Your reasoning?
Dems are leading in every defended seat except for one Montana poll (Tester). Presuming North Dakota and Nebraska were also lost, you still need two Democratic losses on top of that.
This doesn't count Massachusetts(Warren leads polls), or Nevada (D challenger has a statistically insignificant lead).
Eh, I think I like to despair. <<; I'm always worried about the worst case scenario when it comes to politics. I'm going to be a basket case on election day.
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I think it's going to be close in the Senate. The house is known for big swings, but the senate that is where it will be a fight. Maybe even 50/50, that would be interesting.
A poll commissioned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee offers the first evidence that the race for North Dakota’s open Senate seat could be competitive.
Former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D) leads Rep. Rick Berg (R) 47 percent to 42 percent in the internal poll, including a 21-point lead among independents. Just 11 percent overall were undecided.
...
Roll Call currently rates the race Likely Republican.
I think it's going to be close in the Senate. The house is known for big swings, but the senate that is where it will be a fight. Maybe even 50/50, that would be interesting.
50/50 makes the VP a tiebreaker.
0
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I think it's going to be close in the Senate. The house is known for big swings, but the senate that is where it will be a fight. Maybe even 50/50, that would be interesting.
50/50 makes the VP a tiebreaker.
I know, and Biden is crazy as shit my circus has arrived, and it makes things interesting especially with Lieberman.
I think it's going to be close in the Senate. The house is known for big swings, but the senate that is where it will be a fight. Maybe even 50/50, that would be interesting.
50/50 makes the VP a tiebreaker.
But the Dems are not known for staying on message like the GOP. The GOP could probably swing a blue dog if they needed to.
Wouldn't 50/50 keep Reid as Majority leader though? That's something. Not a lot (can we replace him with Pelosi?) but it's something.
I think it's going to be close in the Senate. The house is known for big swings, but the senate that is where it will be a fight. Maybe even 50/50, that would be interesting.
50/50 makes the VP a tiebreaker.
I know, and Biden is crazy as shit my circus has arrived, and it makes things interesting especially with Lieberman.
Except there won't be a Lieberman. He took one look at his polling, and announced his retirement.
Posts
too much SWTOR
You guys need to catch-up with the whole modern world thing and let a computer divide your states.
That's still absurd. You intentionally gerrymandered it, in otherwords, to favor a particular minority.
If you're going to do that, you may as well just say, "Fuck it," and give them a representative by default.
Yet, that's current law.
What's the difference between slicing a continguious latino community into four pieces so majority white districts end up 75% white, 25% latino, thus making the latino's fucking irrelevant, and the bridging the two Native american communities? Why does the happenstance of their proximity give the latinos better votes than the Native Americans?
Well the corollary is the we have historically discriminated against them, and have decided their rights should be protected
You should use an ethnicity-blind process to divide districts, end of story. I mean, that doesn't seem ridiculous to you, that you have an element of acknowledged benign racism built into your district drawing process?
In a winner take all election system overly safe seats vs simply safe seats does not encourage extremism.
What matters is where the median voter is(and where then the median congresscritter is) and splitting to ensure representation does not necessarily move the median voter or congresscritter towards the extremes.
Otherwise you could have large groups of people who dont have any say in government and know that their vote doesn't matter. You could go with full proportional representation but that has it's own set of problems(rotten Burroughs and having a kkk caucus in the house for example)
We tried not limited the contents of a district based on ethnicity and we ended up with districts designed to completely remove the effect of minority votes. So this is one of those "Yea, in theory I'd like to avoid it but in reality you have to be ignorant to suggest it" kind of things.
The second objection I would have is why the fuck do you think we have geographical districts in the first place? It is because Representative X is supposed to be a spokesman for the communities in his district. If a community is split among several different Reps it greatly reduces their influence to the point of irrelevance. Which kinda kills the "for the people," bit and replaces it with "for the people who get to decide which people actually matter."
The fact that state legislatures get to draw not only their own districts but those for Congress as well is possibly the biggest conflict of interest in modern politics.
I mean, it's certainly a huge conflict of interest, but I don't know that I would go so far as "biggest."
What? And this isn't sarcasm.
I literaly mean "What"?
Possibly as in "the fuck"
An act of Congress is the reason insider trading is a crime. So naturally Congress is exempt.
One or two people bring it up every year saying "come on guys!" and the rest reply "yeah yeah we'll get around to it eventually"? Just a total guess.
Dems are leading in every defended seat except for one Montana poll (Tester). Presuming North Dakota and Nebraska were also lost, you still need two Democratic losses on top of that.
This doesn't count Massachusetts(Warren leads polls), or Nevada (D challenger has a statistically insignificant lead).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The Fox News take on it.
Pants, we're actually doing pretty well in the major races in North Dakota. Might lose them, but they'll be close.
Huh turns out you're right
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But the Dems are not known for staying on message like the GOP. The GOP could probably swing a blue dog if they needed to.
Wouldn't 50/50 keep Reid as Majority leader though? That's something. Not a lot (can we replace him with Pelosi?) but it's something.
Except there won't be a Lieberman. He took one look at his polling, and announced his retirement.