On Mississippi, it is the most racially polarized state in the country. Mississippi whites vote for Republicans like blacks everywhere vote for Democrats, basically. And it doesn't have the same kind of immigrant population from other parts of the country that say, Georgia even or especially Virginia has. Racist comment probably not disqualifying.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+4
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
On Mississippi, it is the most racially polarized state in the country. Mississippi whites vote for Republicans like blacks everywhere vote for Democrats, basically. And it doesn't have the same kind of immigrant population from other parts of the country that say, Georgia even or especially Virginia has. Racist comment probably not disqualifying.
Certainly not with this attitude!
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Pretty sure he can go fuck himself.
I'm confused, why haven't I heard about any states requiring liberal areas to vote for representatives and senators in entirely different voting locations, while allowing conservative areas to use the same voting locations? Have no state legislatures ever bothered to read that part of the constitution, or is there something else that I'm missing?
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Pretty sure he can go fuck himself.
I'm confused, why haven't I heard about any states requiring liberal areas to vote for representatives and senators in entirely different voting locations, while allowing conservative areas to use the same voting locations? Have no state legislatures ever bothered to read that part of the constitution, or is there something else that I'm missing?
Because that section of the constitution just says that each state gets to pick how their voting systems work? There is nothing there about making liberals or conservatives at all.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Pretty sure he can go fuck himself.
I'm confused, why haven't I heard about any states requiring liberal areas to vote for representatives and senators in entirely different voting locations, while allowing conservative areas to use the same voting locations? Have no state legislatures ever bothered to read that part of the constitution, or is there something else that I'm missing?
Because the methods must respect equal protections. If it was "liberal areas" it might even be Constitutional but generally those would create substantial racial imbalances which are prohibited. Polinquin's argument is that a uniform system violates equal protection because....
He basically argues that
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
must mean a plurality system despite article 4 directly contradicting that interpretation.
(cont)
Indeed in the cited case Phillips v Rockefeller (1970) which argued the opposite (that a majority was required not a plurality in NY) the 2nd circuit found (emphasis mine)
The key question, then, involves the meaning of the language in Article I, Section 2, "chosen by the People." It seems clear that that language was not intended to mean that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast at the general election in order to be elected to the House of Representatives. When the framers of the Constitution intended that a majority be required, they were quite capable of saying so. Thus in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution providing for the election of the President, by electors chosen in the various states, the Constitution provided that
the Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed * * *
In the Twelfth Amendment which superseded Article II, Section 1, effective September 25, 1804, it was again provided:
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.
Thus it follows that if the drafters of Article I, Section 2, had intended to require election by a majority of the people, they would have said so.
Morever, the language of Article I, Section 2, has never been construed to mean that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be
elected to the House. On the contrary, the provision has always been construed to mean that the candidate receiving the highest number of votes at the general election is elected, although his vote be only a plurality of all votes cast. Our political history records many elections of Representatives to Congress, both before and after 1913, where the winner received only a plurality of the votes. Hence when the drafters of the Seventeenth Amendment chose to use the language of Article I, Section 2, they surely knew that that language had permitted elections by a plurality.
In sum, the deliberate choice of the drafters of the Seventeenth Amendment to use the words of the section providing for elections to the House, rather than the words of the 1866 Act, demonstrates that they intended the same result — that is, that elections to the Senate need not be by a majority of the votes cast.
...
Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution provides that the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The New York Election Law does not specify whether, in the case of elections to these offices, a majority or a plurality is required. However, in interpreting the words of the Election Law that Senators shall be "elected by the people," New York has adopted the practice of permitting a plurality candidate to be duly elected, without providing for a run-off election. As shown above, that interpretation is consonant with the Seventeenth Amendment.
What a terrible case they have if that's their precedent. A different circuit allowing a state legislature to allow a plurality does not in anyway suggest that they can't require a majority or require a runoff.
Way I heard it from a friend in Maine a while back, the whole reason the state (finally) went to preference voting was that the D vote kept getting split between multiple entitled chucklefucks like this guy, allowing the R candidate* to walk in and sit down while they're all stuck in the door yelling at each other.
* Singular, because one party usually has its discipline together.
Way I heard it from a friend in Maine a while back, the whole reason the state (finally) went to preference voting was that the D vote kept getting split between multiple entitled chucklefucks like this guy, allowing the R candidate* to walk in and sit down while they're all stuck in the door yelling at each other.
* Singular, because one party usually has its discipline together.
They elected the same ?governor? twice, even though he was awful and over half of the state really didn't like him, but he kept winning the seat with ~40% of the votes.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
House Democrats steamrolled Republicans in an array of districts last week, from those drawn by independent commissions or courts, to seats crafted specifically by Republicans with the intention of keeping them in the GOP column.
The overriding factor: a Republican president who political mapmakers could not have foreseen at the beginning of the decade. Trump altered the two parties’ coalitions in ways that specifically undermined conventional wisdom about the House map, bringing more rural voters into the GOP tent while driving away college-educated voters.
The trade worked in some states. But it was a Republican disaster in the House, where well-off suburbs, once the backbone of many GOP districts, rebelled against Trump in 2016 and then threw out House members in 2018.
It goes on with some other stuff you can read in the article but the basic premise is that gerrymandering, when done as forcefully as the GOP have done it via models and such, involves a lot of demographic assumptions about support for each party. And Trump has basically accelerated an already existing movement within the parties, pushing educated and urban/suburban voters out and bringing more low-education and rural voters in to the GOP coalition. Which completely fucked a bunch of republicans who suddenly found themselves representing carefully gerrymandered districts full of people who now wanted nothing to do with the GOP brand. This has also, in a few cases, worked in reverse as some districts drawn by Democrats for Democrats are going Republican as the Democratic congresspeople's former rural base switches sides (so to speak).
In general, and this is a major issue wrt the Senate, we are seeing I think a move towards more low-information and rural voters by the GOP because that's a big part of what Trump attracts with his style and politics. This may be mostly manageable in the House but the Senate is only going to get worse and worse.
Conservative media has been yelling about how the Democrats don't care about the victory of an asian american because she's a Republican, when it looks like Kim is actually going to end up losing her race.
Posts
~stands behind you in total solidarity, while wearing my Floridan sandals and sunglasses~
Certainly not with this attitude!
And thirdly it was a special election. Chances are excellent in a on-year election that Moore would have won.
EDIT: Candidate mixup
I'm confused, why haven't I heard about any states requiring liberal areas to vote for representatives and senators in entirely different voting locations, while allowing conservative areas to use the same voting locations? Have no state legislatures ever bothered to read that part of the constitution, or is there something else that I'm missing?
Because that section of the constitution just says that each state gets to pick how their voting systems work? There is nothing there about making liberals or conservatives at all.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Because the methods must respect equal protections. If it was "liberal areas" it might even be Constitutional but generally those would create substantial racial imbalances which are prohibited. Polinquin's argument is that a uniform system violates equal protection because....
He basically argues that must mean a plurality system despite article 4 directly contradicting that interpretation.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Indeed in the cited case Phillips v Rockefeller (1970) which argued the opposite (that a majority was required not a plurality in NY) the 2nd circuit found (emphasis mine)
What a terrible case they have if that's their precedent. A different circuit allowing a state legislature to allow a plurality does not in anyway suggest that they can't require a majority or require a runoff.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
* Singular, because one party usually has its discipline together.
Smith is the CEO of the Texas Tribune
They elected the same ?governor? twice, even though he was awful and over half of the state really didn't like him, but he kept winning the seat with ~40% of the votes.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
*This is actually true, but I'm pretty sure the numbers he used in his remarks were made up.
The pro-life people have been spreading falsified Margaret Sanger quotes about how much she hates black people for decades.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/13/republicans-trump-redistricting-house-2018-984947
It goes on with some other stuff you can read in the article but the basic premise is that gerrymandering, when done as forcefully as the GOP have done it via models and such, involves a lot of demographic assumptions about support for each party. And Trump has basically accelerated an already existing movement within the parties, pushing educated and urban/suburban voters out and bringing more low-education and rural voters in to the GOP coalition. Which completely fucked a bunch of republicans who suddenly found themselves representing carefully gerrymandered districts full of people who now wanted nothing to do with the GOP brand. This has also, in a few cases, worked in reverse as some districts drawn by Democrats for Democrats are going Republican as the Democratic congresspeople's former rural base switches sides (so to speak).
In general, and this is a major issue wrt the Senate, we are seeing I think a move towards more low-information and rural voters by the GOP because that's a big part of what Trump attracts with his style and politics. This may be mostly manageable in the House but the Senate is only going to get worse and worse.
Its basically concern trolling
Friend of mine worked on curating her papers. Got disillusioned because what she read was super, super racist.
Let's check wikipedia:
Ok, yeah, super racist doesn't seem like a big surprise.
AP is a news organization
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That's my boy!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Clearly he tried harder.
Seems Twitter User @baseballot is updating races as they close and other pertinent info.
I think both of those were included in the estimated +39 when I asked.
By 261 votes, with a ton left to count.
For those wondering, this is one of the Orange County "always Republican" suburb areas around LA which have been shifting blue.
Is that +39 from now or from half?
39 seats gained from the present Congress. That puts Dems at about 232 of the 435 seats in the House.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Ah ah AH!
It's worth following the link too. You can probably guess, but they make sure to twist the knife on it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
As anyone who heard political ads for the district, it's Liberal Katie Porter thank you very much.
It always bothered me how dirty they made it sound.
Young Kim (R)'s lead is down to 711.
Conservative media has been yelling about how the Democrats don't care about the victory of an asian american because she's a Republican, when it looks like Kim is actually going to end up losing her race.