Americans are not well-represented in their government

[LA Grant]

4 hours ago, Azalin said:

You've already established that's how you feel. That's not what I was talking about.

 

Az.... gimme a break. I've given you a lot to work with, I've asked you questions directly. 

 

Feel free to engage on the topic. Or don't. If you do, I'll meet you there. But I'm not a mind-reader.

[Deranged Rhino]

You're not even a reader... as you've proven throughout each and every thread you "participate" in.  

[Azalin]

24 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Az.... gimme a break. I've given you a lot to work with, I've asked you questions directly. 

 

Feel free to engage on the topic. Or don't. If you do, I'll meet you there. But I'm not a mind-reader.

 

Okay then, I do not agree with your assessment that a greater number of representatives equals "better" representation. Maybe it does on paper, but the reality would seem to me to do nothing but increase the number of self-serving partisans in the legislative body with the lowest approval rating. I simply do not believe that in this case more equals better. 

 

With regard to repealing the 17th, I'm on the fence. The state legislatures were supposed to elect their senators, but too many states failed to do so in a timely fashion, so that responsibility was handed over to the voting public. In my opinion, the interests of each state are probably better served by those selected to do so by state agents, but that's probably debatable as well.

 

But again, you brought up Gerrymandering, so I asked you if you believe it to be a bad thing to redraw districts to better serve minority communities.

[row_33]

Gerrymandering has been a major issue for over 100 years, nice of the clowns on here to spend two seconds on the topic and condemn it because the GOP is now in charge of it.

 

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, Azalin said:

Okay then, I do not agree with your assessment that a greater number of representatives equals "better" representation. Maybe it does on paper, but the reality would seem to me to do nothing but increase the number of self-serving partisans in the legislative body with the lowest approval rating. I simply do not believe that in this case more equals better. 

 

With regard to repealing the 17th, I'm on the fence. The state legislatures were supposed to elect their senators, but too many states failed to do so in a timely fashion, so that responsibility was handed over to the voting public. In my opinion, the interests of each state are probably better served by those selected to do so by state agents, but that's probably debatable as well.

 

But again, you brought up Gerrymandering, so I asked you if you believe it to be a bad thing to redraw districts to better serve minority communities.

 

By that logic, would fewer representatives = better representation? A dictator would be 1 representative for the entire population. Would that be preferable? Obviously not, right?

 

When you're evaluating "representation," quality & quantity go hand-in-hand. 

 

To your question, districts should be drawn based on population numbers, not demographics. The districts should be equitable and fair. To make it such, the districts should be smaller so you have more of a voice with your Representative. Drawing the districts based on the demographics is how the lines tend to be created now, in present day; hence, gerrymandering.

 

Here is an example.

 

 

I don't know why you think the version on the right is the better way... other than it keeps "Red" in power. It's not justifiable for any other reason, really.

 

Re: the 17th Amendment.

 

I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who believe clarifying or limiting 2A would be a slippery slope to losing the public's check on government overreach.... ALSO BELIEVE in giving up their own voting power!!  It is a breathtaking contradiction.

 

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

Gerrymandering has been a major issue for over 100 years, nice of the clowns on here to spend two seconds on the topic and condemn it because the GOP is now in charge of it.

 

So it was a problem before, but now it isn't?  Gerrymandering can only be discussed when the GOP isn't in charge?

 

The GOP holds all the cards right now. If you think Gerrymandering is a problem -- what's preventing Republicans from fixing it? They have the numbers to pass this through, and it would likely receive bi-partisan support. 

 

It'd even help Trump rehabilitate his image to some degree, if he were able to leverage his outsider status to enact some legislation that doesn't benefit the two parties.

Edited April 10, 2018 by LA Grant

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

By that logic, would fewer representatives = better representation? A dictator would be 1 representative for the entire population. Would that be preferable? Obviously not, right?

 

No, that is not what I said. Read my response again.

 

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

When you're evaluating "representation," quality & quantity go hand-in-hand. 

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. That's a presumption on your part, and one with which I do not agree.

 

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

To your question, districts should be drawn based on population numbers, not demographics. The districts should be equitable and fair. To make it such, the districts should be smaller so you have more of a voice with your Representative. Drawing the districts based on the demographics is how the lines tend to be created now, in present day; hence, gerrymandering.

 

Here is an example.

 

 

I don't know why you think the version on the right is the better way... other than it keeps "Red" in power. It's not justifiable for any other reason, really.

 

I never said that was a better way. I only pointed out that some people believe that drawing up districts in a manner that gives greater voice to the needs of ethnic minorities is a good thing.

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Re: the 17th Amendment.

 

I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who believe clarifying or limiting 2A would be a slippery slope to losing the public's check on government overreach.... ALSO BELIEVE in giving up their own voting power!!  It is a breathtaking contradiction.

 

 

 

Calling support for repealing the 17th "giving up voting power" is nonsense. It's calling for the return to voting procedures laid out by the founders - hardly a radical opinion to hold.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

Calling support for repealing the 17th "giving up voting power" is nonsense. It's calling for the return to voting procedures laid out by the founders - hardly a radical opinion to hold.

 

It's radical to a progressive fascist who fancies himself an independent moderate who's fighting Nazis.

[row_33]

Radical as in removing the leg to save the body?

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

[DC Tom]

56 minutes ago, Azalin said:

Calling support for repealing the 17th "giving up voting power" is nonsense. It's calling for the return to voting procedures laid out by the founders - hardly a radical opinion to hold.

 

Some people want a return to the oppressive anarchy of true Athenian Democracy.

 

Of course, the same people are so misguided they believe the Constitution is intended to grant authority, not limit it.

[snafu]

4 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

By that logic, would fewer representatives = better representation? A dictator would be 1 representative for the entire population. Would that be preferable? Obviously not, right?

 

When you're evaluating "representation," quality & quantity go hand-in-hand. 

 

To your question, districts should be drawn based on population numbers, not demographics. The districts should be equitable and fair. To make it such, the districts should be smaller so you have more of a voice with your Representative. Drawing the districts based on the demographics is how the lines tend to be created now, in present day; hence, gerrymandering.

 

Here is an example.

 

 

I don't know why you think the version on the right is the better way... other than it keeps "Red" in power. It's not justifiable for any other reason, really.

 

Re: the 17th Amendment.

 

I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who believe clarifying or limiting 2A would be a slippery slope to losing the public's check on government overreach.... ALSO BELIEVE in giving up their own voting power!!  It is a breathtaking contradiction.

 

 

So it was a problem before, but now it isn't?  Gerrymandering can only be discussed when the GOP isn't in charge?

 

The GOP holds all the cards right now. If you think Gerrymandering is a problem -- what's preventing Republicans from fixing it? They have the numbers to pass this through, and it would likely receive bi-partisan support. 

 

It'd even help Trump rehabilitate his image to some degree, if he were able to leverage his outsider status to enact some legislation that doesn't benefit the two parties.

 

Why didn't you draw the rectangles vertically intstead of horizontally in the middle diagram, don't you want red to have any wins?  

 

Nobody likes gerrymandering. It is obviously a transparent way for a seat to be held by one party or another, and both parties engage in it.  

But isn't what you're proposing (giving more congressional seats to cities and population centers which are obviously overwhelmingly "blue") a form of gerrymandering?  I think it is.

 

if you want better representation, then make representatives spend more time in their districts than out of them. There's no reason for a congressperson to spend much time in DC, especially in a digitally connected world.  Have peoples' representatives listen to their constituents in-person, face to face, for a change.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by snafu

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Why didn't you draw the rectangles vertically intstead of horizontally in the middle diagram, don't you want red to have any wins?  

 

Nobody likes gerrymandering. It is obviously a transparent way for a seat to be held by one party or another, and both parties engage in it.  

But isn't what you're proposing (giving more congressional seats to cities and population centers which are obviously overwhelmingly "blue") a form of gerrymandering?  I think it is.

 

if you want better representation, then make representatives spend more time in their districts than out of them. There's no reason for a congressperson to spend much time in DC, especially in a digitally connected world.  Have peoples' representatives listen to their constituents in-person, face to face, for a change.

 

 

 

Could you try that in the English language???

 

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

Could you try that in the English language???

 

 

What was so difficult to understand? Snafu's post makes perfect sense.

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Some people want a return to the oppressive anarchy of true Athenian Democracy.

 

Of course, the same people are so misguided they believe the Constitution is intended to grant authority, not limit it.

 

I think you give them too much credit. I think people who believe that way are intellectually disconnected from both logic and reality.

 

To quote the Cisco Kid: "You know - morons!"

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

9 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

I think you give them too much credit. I think people who believe that way are intellectually disconnected from both logic and reality.

 

 

No, I don't.  Although my statement implies that they know what Athenian Democracy was, in fact they can be totally ignorant of it and still want it.  And in fact, they are - they think they have a new idea that's the ultimate expression of Enlightenment philosophy made possible by modern technology, when in fact it's a 2500 year old idea and completely !@#$ed up.

 

Because...you know, morons.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

PPP is the Wild F'in West, isn't it?

 

I've strapped both of my six-shooters to my belt, just so ya know.

 

The issue of Gerrymandering is really a two-party issue, right?  If we had a multi-party system, would Gerrymandering be an issue?  I doubt it.  Now, you ask me the pragmatic reality of a multi-party system, and you say, "Never Gonna Happen!", and I would agree: the "American Power Complex" would never allow it, because both major parties are bought and paid for many times over.  The Gerrymandering issue is not really one of empowering minority voters, for example, although it's certainly couched like that for PR reasons.  And, of course, empowering minority voters is not a bad thing at all.  But the real issue at play here is the tug-of-war "rivalry" between the two major parties, which is just part of the overall game for the power elite.  It's a "biggest stage" version of RISK, where all those in power or who are part of the "teams" (parties) become enriched to various degrees by their relative success.  These people are playing a game that the vast majority of people have no clue about, partly because they don't want to have a clue, and partly because they just don't think like these people do.

 

Next: If the objection to more representatives is that there would just be more self-serving politicians sucking at the teat, then the real issue is with American Republican Democracy, right?  So then we're back to the same issue: the System will never substantively change, "Never Gonna Happen!".  So the question then becomes: if you accept that nothing will really ever substantively change, then is the Status Quo preferable to any amending whatsoever?  Could, for example, repealing the 17th actually make things worse, than if we stood pat?  If our political system is completely bought and paid for, any "change" would be one that is allowed and would obviously only be allowed to benefit the "power elite" and the System itself.  In a strange way, it would make sense to not change anything ever.  THAT is the real problem with our system as it stands: any "revolution" or "amendment", no matter how small or big, just plays into the hands of the entrenched power.  It's enriching them instead of limiting them.  The co-opting of causes, the turn-over of Presidents, the this and the that are all part of the Game: it gives the Illusion that we have some Agency, when the reality is, of course, that we really don't.

 

So what does it mean to be a Citizen in such a system?  What does republican democracy mean if all Agency has become merely a PR illusion to placate us?  What does it mean if all "Change" is shepharded/orchestrated by the very people we mean to curb?  The answer:  In reality, it means nothing.  And this neutering, this lobotomizing of us as agent-citizens, I think is something that ALL of us, no matter what party, side, wing, or philosophy, can agree is severely problematic, even if none of us can do a damn thing about it.

 

 

 

[row_33]

The Dems gerrymandered House districts based solely on racial demographics to ensure wins for those demographics. One was barely a quarter mile on either side of a single highway 

 

thar was their right to do so as they were in power, and not a peep was said by the media over it

 

 

 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

On 4/10/2018 at 4:45 PM, LA Grant said:

 

By that logic, would fewer representatives = better representation? A dictator would be 1 representative for the entire population. Would that be preferable? Obviously not, right?

 

When you're evaluating "representation," quality & quantity go hand-in-hand. 

 

To your question, districts should be drawn based on population numbers, not demographics. The districts should be equitable and fair. To make it such, the districts should be smaller so you have more of a voice with your Representative. Drawing the districts based on the demographics is how the lines tend to be created now, in present day; hence, gerrymandering.

 

Here is an example.

 

 

I don't know why you think the version on the right is the better way... other than it keeps "Red" in power. It's not justifiable for any other reason, really.

 

Re: the 17th Amendment.

 

I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who believe clarifying or limiting 2A would be a slippery slope to losing the public's check on government overreach.... ALSO BELIEVE in giving up their own voting power!!  It is a breathtaking contradiction.

 

 

So it was a problem before, but now it isn't?  Gerrymandering can only be discussed when the GOP isn't in charge?

 

The GOP holds all the cards right now. If you think Gerrymandering is a problem -- what's preventing Republicans from fixing it? They have the numbers to pass this through, and it would likely receive bi-partisan support. 

 

It'd even help Trump rehabilitate his image to some degree, if he were able to leverage his outsider status to enact some legislation that doesn't benefit the two parties.

Or you can use public money to fund democratic party allies and political action groups. Here in NY ACTUAL PARTIES ON THE BALLOT get public money straight from Albany, however ONLY left leaning parties. An example is the "Working Families Party."

 

https://nypost.com/2018/04/15/working-families-party-might-regret-endorsing-nixon/

 

Now that they are endorsing Andy Cuomo's primary challenger, Cynthia Nixon, Andy is pulling their funding and threatening to trigger an IRS audit LOL