Ready for almost 7 more years?

[Gil Dobie]

The real irony here is that each state can determine how their electors are employed.

Only two states allow their electors to split - Maine and Nebraska.

If the left and their fellow travelers like St Wronge really wanted to pit their money where their mouths are, they'd advocate at their own state levels to do away with the winner take all method - but they won't do that... because CA is comfortably blue but if they split their electors the Dems would give up a few electors

Everybody wants to bitch and cry when the EC doesn't go their way but give them a choice to go towards actual pure democracy and they'll balk every time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've always thought it should be done by congressional district with the winner of the majority of the districts in a state getting the remaining 2 electors for the state. If they split by congressional district Trump would have won 230 and Hilldog 205.




Trump won more districts/states so he still would have won the presidency.

Minnesota voted very similar to the USA. Rural districts were pretty normal, with rural vote going for Trump and metro districts overwhelmingly for Clinton. For example, Minneapolis was 73-18% Clinton over Trump. The highest Trump % was 61-31%.

[Ivytalk]

The real irony here is that each state can determine how their electors are employed.

Only two states allow their electors to split - Maine and Nebraska.

If the left and their fellow travelers like St Wronge really wanted to pit their money where their mouths are, they'd advocate at their own state levels to do away with the winner take all method - but they won't do that... because CA is comfortably blue but if they split their electors the Dems would give up a few electors

Everybody wants to bitch and cry when the EC doesn't go their way but give them a choice to go towards actual pure democracy and they'll balk every time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've always thought it should be done by congressional district with the winner of the majority of the districts in a state getting the remaining 2 electors for the state. If they split by congressional district Trump would have won 230 and Hilldog 205.




Trump won more districts/states so he still would have won the presidency.

So what do you say to that, Mr. St. Thonge?

No homo.

[Skjellyfetti]

If we could eliminate gerrymandering somehow... I'd be fine with that.

[Winterborn]

If we could eliminate gerrymandering somehow... I'd be fine with that.

Follow the county (or parish) boundaries.

[Skjellyfetti]

If we could eliminate gerrymandering somehow... I'd be fine with that.

Follow the county (or parish) boundaries.

Not so simple.

[Gil Dobie]

Follow the county (or parish) boundaries.

Not so simple.

Noticed Minnesota 4th, which voted Clinton by 65%, in 2013 added half of Washington County, voted Clinton 47%. Most of the population is in Ramsey County/St Paul. A pretty even voting county has now become part of a Democratic District. The larger the cities become, the further they can reach out and grab more territory, to align with their political leanings. Which for larger cities is generally Democrat. Hennepin, Minneapolis is still somewhat similar to what has always been it's district are growing faster than the suburbs around St Paul.

[css75]

The Dems have been so good for the inner cities, they are prosperous, well educated, employed and blessed with very low crime rates.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I've always thought it should be done by congressional district with the winner of the majority of the districts in a state getting the remaining 2 electors for the state. If they split by congressional district Trump would have won 230 and Hilldog 205.




Trump won more districts/states so he still would have won the presidency.

So what do you say to that, Mr. St. Thonge?

No homo.

I would not balk as CID says. I think the President, who is a single official representing all of the people of the United States, should be the winner of the overall vote of all of the people in the United States. I think the Electoral College should be eliminated.

The maps showing red and blue by area are interesting to look at but most of the people in the United States live in concentrated areas. Here is one Census Bureau article containing an estimate that "U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area:"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... 15-33.html

Peoples' votes for the single office that represents all of the people should not count for less because they live in areas of more concentrated population.

[CID1990]

Follow the county (or parish) boundaries.

Not so simple.

Wait -

Do you mean that would be unfair because various and sundry groups would be under/over represented if we just use county lines?

[css75]

So what do you say to that, Mr. St. Thonge?

No homo.

I would not balk as CID says. I think the President, who is a single official representing all of the people of the United States, should be the winner of the overall vote of all of the people in the United States. I think the Electoral College should be eliminated.

The maps showing red and blue by area are interesting to look at but most of the people in the United States live in concentrated areas. Here is one Census Bureau article containing an estimate that "U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area:"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... 15-33.html

Peoples' votes for the single office that represents all of the people should not count for less because they live in areas of more concentrated population.

It doesn’t work that way, how hard is it for you to comprehend that there are 50 separate elections for president.

There is a short video on YouTube (it wouldn’t copy without a subscription to Red), called “Do you understand the electoral college? “. This could help you understand a very basic principle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

So what do you say to that, Mr. St. Thonge?

No homo.

I would not balk as CID says. I think the President, who is a single official representing all of the people of the United States, should be the winner of the overall vote of all of the people in the United States. I think the Electoral College should be eliminated.

The maps showing red and blue by area are interesting to look at but most of the people in the United States live in concentrated areas. Here is one Census Bureau article containing an estimate that "U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area:"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... 15-33.html

Peoples' votes for the single office that represents all of the people should not count for less because they live in areas of more concentrated population.

I see

So you have a problem with Trump being President, but you have no problem with California and New York choosing your President for you, which means Herbert Camacho or Leonardo DiCaprio

What kind of representation do you think Louisiana would get without the electoral system? At least politicians have to pretend to give a fvck about you. With a direct election you'll never see them, ever

Fortunately, we are a republic, so the states get to make any decision to get away from the EC, which will never happen

[Skjellyfetti]

Not so simple.

Wait -

Do you mean that would be unfair because various and sundry groups would be under/over represented if we just use county lines?

The biggest factor for drawing Congressional districts is that they have to have the same population.

Cook County, Illinois has 5 million people.

Hardin County, Illinois has 4,000 people.

So, yeah. I would have a problem with a places like Cook County and Hardin County both having the same number of Congressional seats.

[Gil Dobie]

Wait -

Do you mean that would be unfair because various and sundry groups would be under/over represented if we just use county lines?

The biggest factor for drawing Congressional districts is that they have to have the same population.

Cook County, Illinois has 5 million people.

Hardin County, Illinois has 4,000 people.

So, yeah. I would have a problem with a places like Cook County and Hardin County both having the same number of Congressional seats.

Some funky looking districts in Cook county right now.

[Skjellyfetti]

No doubt.

[CID1990]

Wait -

Do you mean that would be unfair because various and sundry groups would be under/over represented if we just use county lines?

The biggest factor for drawing Congressional districts is that they have to have the same population.

Cook County, Illinois has 5 million people.

Hardin County, Illinois has 4,000 people.

So, yeah. I would have a problem with a places like Cook County and Hardin County both having the same number of Congressional seats.

That isn’t what I asked you Mr Straw Man

Not if Hardin County is combined with other counties to create a district with the same population as Cook County

Jesus you really are a midget

[Chizzang]

I would not balk as CID says. I think the President, who is a single official representing all of the people of the United States, should be the winner of the overall vote of all of the people in the United States. I think the Electoral College should be eliminated.

The maps showing red and blue by area are interesting to look at but most of the people in the United States live in concentrated areas. Here is one Census Bureau article containing an estimate that "U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area:"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... 15-33.html

Peoples' votes for the single office that represents all of the people should not count for less because they live in areas of more concentrated population.

I see

So you have a problem with Trump being President, but you have no problem with California and New York choosing your President for you, which means Herbert Camacho or Leonardo DiCaprio

So with this comment you somehow think Trump isn't Camacho or DiCaprio..?
Because I've got news for you if you really are confused about that



Or maybe I'm NOT reading that right...
The Electoral College does not save America from game show hosts becoming presidents
just an FYI

[Ibanez]

I see

So you have a problem with Trump being President, but you have no problem with California and New York choosing your President for you, which means Herbert Camacho or Leonardo DiCaprio

So with this comment you somehow think Trump isn't Camacho or DiCaprio..?
Because I've got news for you if you really are confused about that



Or maybe I'm NOT reading that right...
The Electoral College does not save America from game show hosts becoming presidents
just an FYI

That isn't what he's saying.

[Skjellyfetti]

Not if Hardin County is combined with other counties to create a district with the same population as Cook County

Uh... Seriously?

Hardin County would have to be combined with most of the rest of the fucking state to create a district with the same population as Cook County.

Then you would have to decide how to allocate the other 16 Congressional seats.

Population of Cook County: 5.238 million.
Population of the rest of Illinois: 7.56 million.

Number of Congressional seats in Illinois: 18

[89Hen]

I had to look up the rules on districting. Jelly is correct on this one. But I will say that when possible, it would be great to leave counties in tact or some other geographic borders.

My county is the most populous of Maryland so it makes sense that it's the most divided I guess. HOWEVER, it's a part of three different districts with I'm guessing six or seven other counties. The average size of our districts are about 750,000 people. My county is about 1M. So why divided it three ways? I live a zip code that is EXTREMELY compact in size and it's a pretty darn homogeneous zip. It's divided between two congressmen.

[Skjellyfetti]

Since districts have to have the same population - the more populated an area, the greater the number of districts. I'm sure your district is gerrymandered as hell, though. I'm not saying it's fine the way it is.

But, it's like choosing the FCS playoff field. Neither side is ever going to be happy. I think the courts need to choose some geographic spatial analysis algorithm that just divides up states into equally proportioned districts and be done with it.

[GannonFan]

Since districts have to have the same population - the more populated an area, the greater the number of districts. I'm sure your district is gerrymandered as hell, though. I'm not saying it's fine the way it is.

But, it's like choosing the FCS playoff field. Neither side is ever going to be happy. I think the courts need to choose some geographic spatial analysis algorithm that just divides up states into equally proportioned districts and be done with it.

I agree, compactness is great, but there are still fine details that come into play, obviously at the edges. Look at the proposed PA map that the state supreme court there drew - it looks more compact and less gerrymandered, on first glance, that the GOP monstrosity that came before it. But the PA supreme court is loaded with Democrats, and conveniently, while it looks compact, it often finds ways to separate municipalities in such a way that both favor Democrats and disadvantage the GOP. And I'm sure that was the intent (they haven't said out loud that the want the outcome of elections, in terms of GOP vs Dems, to mirror the state's numbers of registered GOP'ers vs Dems, but they've danced around that as the case has proceeded). But I like Iowa's approach, so I wouldn't mind if that was copied elsewhere.

[HI54UNI]

Since districts have to have the same population - the more populated an area, the greater the number of districts. I'm sure your district is gerrymandered as hell, though. I'm not saying it's fine the way it is.

But, it's like choosing the FCS playoff field. Neither side is ever going to be happy. I think the courts need to choose some geographic spatial analysis algorithm that just divides up states into equally proportioned districts and be done with it.

I agree, compactness is great, but there are still fine details that come into play, obviously at the edges. Look at the proposed PA map that the state supreme court there drew - it looks more compact and less gerrymandered, on first glance, that the GOP monstrosity that came before it. But the PA supreme court is loaded with Democrats, and conveniently, while it looks compact, it often finds ways to separate municipalities in such a way that both favor Democrats and disadvantage the GOP. And I'm sure that was the intent (they haven't said out loud that the want the outcome of elections, in terms of GOP vs Dems, to mirror the state's numbers of registered GOP'ers vs Dems, but they've danced around that as the case has proceeded). But I like Iowa's approach, so I wouldn't mind if that was copied elsewhere.

Iowa plan requires

1. Districts must be "convenient and contiguous."
2. Districts must "preserve the integrity of political subdivisions like counties and cities."
3. Districts must "to the extent consistent with other requirements, [be] reasonably compact–defined in terms of regular polygons, comparisons of length and width, and overall boundary perimeter."

In addition, state House districts are required to be contained within state Senate districts "where possible, and where not in conflict with the criteria above." It is explicit in state law that district lines cannot be drawn "to favor a political party, incumbent, or other person or group.

#2 doesn't mean that counties or cities can't be split but makes it so they can't be split unless necessary, i.e. large population centers.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if all states adopted the Iowa plan.

[GannonFan]

I agree, compactness is great, but there are still fine details that come into play, obviously at the edges. Look at the proposed PA map that the state supreme court there drew - it looks more compact and less gerrymandered, on first glance, that the GOP monstrosity that came before it. But the PA supreme court is loaded with Democrats, and conveniently, while it looks compact, it often finds ways to separate municipalities in such a way that both favor Democrats and disadvantage the GOP. And I'm sure that was the intent (they haven't said out loud that the want the outcome of elections, in terms of GOP vs Dems, to mirror the state's numbers of registered GOP'ers vs Dems, but they've danced around that as the case has proceeded). But I like Iowa's approach, so I wouldn't mind if that was copied elsewhere.

Iowa plan requires

1. Districts must be "convenient and contiguous."
2. Districts must "preserve the integrity of political subdivisions like counties and cities."
3. Districts must "to the extent consistent with other requirements, [be] reasonably compact–defined in terms of regular polygons, comparisons of length and width, and overall boundary perimeter."

In addition, state House districts are required to be contained within state Senate districts "where possible, and where not in conflict with the criteria above." It is explicit in state law that district lines cannot be drawn "to favor a political party, incumbent, or other person or group.

#2 doesn't mean that counties or cities can't be split but makes it so they can't be split unless necessary, i.e. large population centers.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if all states adopted the Iowa plan.

Iowa doesn't have minorities, though, so there's that added difficulty when you look outside of Iowa.

[Chizzang]

So with this comment you somehow think Trump isn't Camacho or DiCaprio..?
Because I've got news for you if you really are confused about that



Or maybe I'm NOT reading that right...
The Electoral College does not save America from game show hosts becoming presidents
just an FYI

That isn't what he's saying.

Help a brother out...
and type slowly so I'll understand

[CID1990]

That isn't what he's saying.

Help a brother out...
and type slowly so I'll understand

All I saw was your “but Trump”

I decided not to say anything to see if you’d actually make an argument against the EC or if you were just channeling Jelly

Looks like you were just channeling Jelly