Ready for almost 7 more years?

[89Hen]

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.

Correct. I live in the most SE corner of District 6. The problem was District 6 had an R for 10 years, so they expanded it down towards me to pick up a bunch more blue voters to flip the district.

[BDKJMU]

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 **** 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

Well, that's about 711k per congressional seat. Using rounding, Cook county would get 7 seats, and the rest of IL would get 11.

[CID1990]

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 **** 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

Yeah - seriously

Please continue with your argument that district lines should not be drawn along preexisting political boundaries

gosh I wonder what we'd wind up with as a reault... its a mystery




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

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.

Yep. PA democrat judges ruled the current map unconstitutional, gave the legislature a short time frame to rewrite it, and when that didn't happen, took it upon themselves to take over the role that is suppose to be reserved for the legislature, and rewrote the map to favor democrats.

[Skjellyfetti]

It's a better map. It favors Democrats because the previous one was gerrymandered to hell.

[Skjellyfetti]

Please continue with your argument that district lines should not be drawn along preexisting political boundaries

That isn’t what I said, Straw Man

I said it wasn't as simple as simply following county/parish lines. The alert on your phone went off that told you I posted, and you had to come in and argue.

Jesus, you really are a midget

[CID1990]

Please continue with your argument that district lines should not be drawn along preexisting political boundaries

That isn’t what I said, Straw Man

I said it wasn't as simple as simply following county/parish lines. The alert on your phone went off that told you I posted, and you had to come in and argue.

Jesus, you really are a midget

You are very precisely arguing for gerrymandering, Junior

It's basically fair districting, with all kinds of caveats

which is what you are making


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

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

Louisiana would get about the same representation as it gets now because Louisiana is a reliably red State. That means that during Presidential general elections both sides know it's going to go Republican so neither side pays much attention to it.

This relates to the idea that the Electoral College is supposed to prevent candidates from just focusing on certain States with large populations. No, they don't do that. Instead, they identify and focus on "swing states." So they pay a whole lot of attention to a State like Pennsylvania because it's in play. I'd say this last time there were maybe 15 "swing states." Maybe. And that's where most of the effort was focused.

In late 1700s it made sense to worry about politicians concentrating all their effort on highly populated areas because there was no electronic communication. Without the electoral college concept it would make sense to identify the most densely populated areas and people in the hinterlands would never hear anything.

But nowadays people in most States would find their votes more coveted if the President was directly elected by the popular vote. A vote would be a vote whether it was in California where most people are going to vote Democrat, in Alabama where most people are going to vote Republican, on in Pennsylvania where there is some question as to how most people are going to vote. There would be a reason for candidates to try to convince me to vote for them instead of just correctly concluding that there is no point in making the effort because Louisiana's electoral votes are going to go to the Republican so whether Louisiana goes 58 - 38% for the Republican or 55% - 45% doesn't matter. If it were direct popular vote that kind of difference would matter.

[JohnStOnge]

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

I know how it works and I understand the electoral college. I've heard/read all the arguments for it. The system was defensible in the 1700s. It was defensible through the early 1800s for sure and into the 1900s. It's not defensible now. Communications technology has rendered any possible defense of it obsolete.

In today's context the electoral system today does exactly what people argue it was established to prevent: It causes candidates to focus on a handful of States while ignoring all the other ones. If there were no electoral college there would be a reason for each candidate to try to squeeze every vote they could out of Louisiana. With the electoral college there isn't. And the same is true for most of the States.

Yes I know our Presidential election is 50 separate elections. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. It's one office for one country. It should be one national vote.

[css75]

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

I know how it works and I understand the electoral college. I've heard/read all the arguments for it. The system was defensible in the 1700s. It was defensible through the early 1800s for sure and into the 1900s. It's not defensible now. Communications technology has rendered any possible defense of it obsolete.

In today's context the electoral system today does exactly what people argue it was established to prevent: It causes candidates to focus on a handful of States while ignoring all the other ones. If there were no electoral college there would be a reason for each candidate to try to squeeze every vote they could out of Louisiana. With the electoral college there isn't. And the same is true for most of the States.

Yes I know our Presidential election is 50 separate elections. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. It's one office for one country. It should be one national vote.

It will never happen, smaller states do not want to be irrelevant so the system stays.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

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

I know how it works and I understand the electoral college. I've heard/read all the arguments for it. The system was defensible in the 1700s. It was defensible through the early 1800s for sure and into the 1900s. It's not defensible now. Communications technology has rendered any possible defense of it obsolete.

In today's context the electoral system today does exactly what people argue it was established to prevent: It causes candidates to focus on a handful of States while ignoring all the other ones. If there were no electoral college there would be a reason for each candidate to try to squeeze every vote they could out of Louisiana. With the electoral college there isn't. And the same is true for most of the States.

Yes I know our Presidential election is 50 separate elections. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. It's one office for one country. It should be one national vote.

Yet you weren’t bleating this “one office, one country” nonsense back in 2000.

[houndawg]

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

I know how it works and I understand the electoral college. I've heard/read all the arguments for it. The system was defensible in the 1700s. It was defensible through the early 1800s for sure and into the 1900s. It's not defensible now. Communications technology has rendered any possible defense of it obsolete.

In today's context the electoral system today does exactly what people argue it was established to prevent: It causes candidates to focus on a handful of States while ignoring all the other ones. If there were no electoral college there would be a reason for each candidate to try to squeeze every vote they could out of Louisiana. With the electoral college there isn't. And the same is true for most of the States.

Yes I know our Presidential election is 50 separate elections. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. It's one office for one country. It should be one national vote.

The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that the establishment has the final word.

[Ivytalk]

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.

Correct. I live in the most SE corner of District 6. The problem was District 6 had an R for 10 years, so they expanded it down towards me to pick up a bunch more blue voters to flip the district.

C’mon, 89! Enough of the “blue voters” euphemism. Why don’t you just say “blacks”?

[GannonFan]

I know how it works and I understand the electoral college. I've heard/read all the arguments for it. The system was defensible in the 1700s. It was defensible through the early 1800s for sure and into the 1900s. It's not defensible now. Communications technology has rendered any possible defense of it obsolete.

In today's context the electoral system today does exactly what people argue it was established to prevent: It causes candidates to focus on a handful of States while ignoring all the other ones. If there were no electoral college there would be a reason for each candidate to try to squeeze every vote they could out of Louisiana. With the electoral college there isn't. And the same is true for most of the States.

Yes I know our Presidential election is 50 separate elections. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. It's one office for one country. It should be one national vote.

The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that the establishment has the final word.

Given the outcome of the 2016 election and Trump, the ultimate non-establishment candidate being elected, and winning over perhaps the most establishment candidate in our lifetime, I'd say your view of the purpose of the electoral college is wrong, like on the level of JSO wrong.

[89Hen]

C’mon, 89! Enough of the “blue voters” euphemism. Why don’t you just say “blacks”?

Aint no blacks in the area in which I'm speaking. Plenty of Asian, Indian (dot not feather), Arabs, Jews, etc...

Now, where the #4 is, that's Andy's hood from growing up. That's another story.

[BDKJMU]

How was PA’s map unconstitutional and MD’s not?

[GannonFan]

How was PA’s map unconstitutional and MD’s not?

Because Democrats gained control of the PA Supreme Court and the map was written by the GOP. Neither party likes it when the other side gerrymanders. Now whether the PA Supreme Court was in the right to throw out a map and draw their own, well, that's a question for the SCOTUS.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on Maryland districts, BDK.

[GannonFan]

I don't think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on Maryland districts, BDK.

Give them time, I'm sure William Penn and the Calverts had some type of deal that can serve as precedent.

[BDKJMU]

I don't think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on Maryland districts, BDK.

Federal districts for federal elections- sounds like something the federal rather than state courts should be ruling on...

[JohnStOnge]

Yep, and the deplorable will win again in 2020.

I think that depends on who the Democrats come up with. I think Sanders would've beaten him in 2016. I think that if Obama could've run for a third term he would've blown him out a lot worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

I don't see an obvious Democrat frontrunner right now. Time will tell. As I've written before nobody would've thought a little more than a year into George H. W. Bush's presidency that somebody named Bill Clinton was going to win the next Presidential election. And Bush was a whole lot more popular at that point of his Presidency than Trump is right now.

I think Trump is a weak candidate. But I think he was a weak candidate last time and won because he was running against an even weaker one. I think if the Democrats can come up with even a decent candidate that candidate will beat Trump. But I don't know if they can.

[89Hen]

I think that if Obama could've run for a third term he would've blown him out a lot worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

That might be the most pointless thing you've ever said here.

[JohnStOnge]

Now here is an extremely ironic take on why the framers wanted the electoral college from History Central (http://www.historycentral.com/elections ... gewhy.html):

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped.

So , if that's true, now the Electoral College has given us exactly what "Hamilton and others" sought to avoid.

[GannonFan]

Now here is an extremely ironic take on why the framers wanted the electoral college from History Central (http://www.historycentral.com/elections ... gewhy.html):

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped.

So , if that's true, now the Electoral College has given us exactly what "Hamilton and others" sought to avoid.

Stop it - that's just one of the reasons for the Electoral College, and it's been a defunct reason for the Electoral College since around 1800 or so when political parties came into being (something that the Framers didn't necessarily want to happen). You could certainly argue that by 1820 or 1824, with the rise of Andrew Jackson, that the "qualified" person the Framers would want and the electorate not being "duped" (although that is perjorative - the electorate wasn't duped when they picked Jackson or any poor President between then and now, including Trump - they knew what they were getting, therefore they couldn't be "duped") was long since past, hence why your pull from History Central is not very pertinent. The main reason for the Electoral College, as was the Senate, is still in force today - smaller states get to have an outsized impact, as it relates to population, on the election of a President. The Framers baked that into the Constitution when they wrote it (much to the dismay of the erroneously named Father of the Constitution, James Madison) and it's still why the Electoral College is around today and will be around long after each and every one of us has passed.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on Maryland districts, BDK.

Federal districts for federal elections- sounds like something the federal rather than state courts should be ruling on...

Not according to the Constitution.

Though, if gerrymandering is ever to be eliminated it will have to be done through SCOTUS. But, they're too busy with more important issues like people wearing pins at voting booths.