REDMAP
Re: REDMAP
It's fascinating (and sad) to see how good republicans are at winning power, which this long-running effort to restructure electorate maps attests to, and how bad they are at governing. The party exists for its own good, and the good of its members (not its voters, mind you). It exists as a stairway to power and wealth. In it, the purpose of government is completely lost.
Re: REDMAP
what's the tl;dr of the article? it's about gerrymandering, but what else is new?
Re: REDMAP
It may not be news, but I think a lot of people vastly underestimate the importance of fighting it. It's undermining democracy more significantly than even propaganda.
People talk about the blue wave coming in 2018, but I think they underestimate the damage that was done to the electoral map in and before 2010. That blue wave may be much less significant than is expected or implied by the popular vote.
People talk about the blue wave coming in 2018, but I think they underestimate the damage that was done to the electoral map in and before 2010. That blue wave may be much less significant than is expected or implied by the popular vote.
Re: REDMAP
The reason Democrats are at their weakest since the 1920s, isn't because of Russia, Pepe, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that most people just don't like the Democratic agenda. That's why even leftist states vote for Republican governors and state legislatures.
Gerrymandering has been around since forever though. The Democrats used it to stay in political power for a century, and now the tables have turned and they are crying about it. The reason Republicans win isn't even due to gerrymandering. If you look at state-wide elections, Republicans win those too.
Gerrymandering has been around since forever though. The Democrats used it to stay in political power for a century, and now the tables have turned and they are crying about it. The reason Republicans win isn't even due to gerrymandering. If you look at state-wide elections, Republicans win those too.
Re: REDMAP
lejend wrote:The reason Democrats are at their weakest since the 1920s, isn't because of Russia, Pepe, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that most people just don't like the Democratic agenda. That's why even leftist states vote for Republican governors and state legislatures.
Gerrymandering has been around since forever though. The Democrats used it to stay in political power for a century, and now the tables have turned and they are crying about it. The reason Republicans win isn't even due to gerrymandering. If you look at state-wide elections, Republicans win those too.
Are you from an alternate time line or do you live under a rock with infowars and breitbart as your only sources of information?
Re: REDMAP
gibson wrote:lejend wrote:The reason Democrats are at their weakest since the 1920s, isn't because of Russia, Pepe, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that most people just don't like the Democratic agenda. That's why even leftist states vote for Republican governors and state legislatures.
Gerrymandering has been around since forever though. The Democrats used it to stay in political power for a century, and now the tables have turned and they are crying about it. The reason Republicans win isn't even due to gerrymandering. If you look at state-wide elections, Republicans win those too.
Are you from an alternate time line or do you live under a rock with infowars and breitbart as your only sources of information?
What do you mean?
Re: REDMAP
What I'm saying is you're either uneducated in current events or stupid as your comment shows you have no idea of the current political landscape
Re: REDMAP
gibson wrote:What I'm saying is you're either uneducated in current events or stupid as your comment shows you have no idea of the current political landscape
How so? Care to point out which part of my post was false?
Re: REDMAP
The part where you suggest democrats are corrupt even though they can't be per definition (vide democracy).
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: REDMAP
Gendarme wrote:The part where you suggest democrats are corrupt even though they can't be per definition (vide democracy).
I think that was Goodspeed. I only said that the Democrats gerrymandered their way to political dominance for a century. It was perfectly legal (I think) (according to the government at least).
Re: REDMAP
I didn't claim anything of the sort but yes, gerrymandering is legal and I think that is exactly the problem. It shouldn't be possible. Popular vote should be all that matters. It's the only way you end up with a government that actually represents the people, which is democracy.lejend wrote:I think that was Goodspeed. I only said that the Democrats gerrymandered their way to political dominance for a century. It was perfectly legal (I think) (according to the government at least).Gendarme wrote:The part where you suggest democrats are corrupt even though they can't be per definition (vide democracy).
Re: REDMAP
Most people don't really want to be represented, though.
They want to get rid of power by voting some power-hungry leaders that fall in the trap of power, and then later destroy them.
They want to get rid of power by voting some power-hungry leaders that fall in the trap of power, and then later destroy them.
Re: REDMAP
Goodspeed wrote:I didn't claim anything of the sort but yes, gerrymandering is legal and I think that is exactly the problem. It shouldn't be possible. Popular vote should be all that matters. It's the only way you end up with a government that actually represents the people, which is what democracy is.lejend wrote:I think that was Goodspeed. I only said that the Democrats gerrymandered their way to political dominance for a century. It was perfectly legal (I think) (according to the government at least).Gendarme wrote:The part where you suggest democrats are corrupt even though they can't be per definition (vide democracy).
That's a debate about whether HoR should represent the people or the states, I think. But technically all those gerrymanderers were voted into office by the people weren't they?
I'm just suspicious about how when gerrymandering favored the Democrats, and Republicans complained about it but were told to shut up, that was okay, but now the tables have turned, and Democrats suddenly want to get rid of gerrymandering. Seems like a cynical political move, not really a fight for liberty. So I find it very difficult to sympathize.
Right now Republicans control every level of government, but are still at the mercy of the Democratic party, precisely because of undemocratic measures, such as the filibuster. Are Democrats for getting rid of that? I highly doubt it.
This blatant inconsistency shows that they're only for democracy when it benefits them.
I mean Republicans are too, but usually to a slightly lower extent.
But I'm generally against "my party = good" "other party = evil" type of thinking. They're all good buds with each other. Aren't we too old to fall for keyfabe?
Re: REDMAP
Whatever happened in history, in this case it was republicans who systematically undermined democracy and it's despicable. I'm not saying democrats are inherently better (although right now they do seem to have the interests of the people at heart more than the Rs do). I'm saying that gerrymandering shouldn't be possible and any system that allows it is broken.lejend wrote:Goodspeed wrote:I didn't claim anything of the sort but yes, gerrymandering is legal and I think that is exactly the problem. It shouldn't be possible. Popular vote should be all that matters. It's the only way you end up with a government that actually represents the people, which is what democracy is.Show hidden quotes
That's a debate about whether HoR should represent the people or the states, I think. But technically all those gerrymanderers were voted into office by the people weren't they?
I'm just suspicious about how when gerrymandering favored the Democrats, and Republicans complained about it but were told to shut up, that was okay, but now the tables have turned, and Democrats suddenly want to get rid of gerrymandering. Seems like a cynical political move, not really a fight for liberty. So I find it very difficult to sympathize.
Right now Republicans control every level of government, but are still at the mercy of the Democratic party, precisely because of undemocratic measures, such as the filibuster. Are Democrats for getting rid of that? I highly doubt it.
This blatant inconsistency shows that they're only for democracy when it benefits them.
I mean Republicans are too, but usually to a slightly lower extent.
But I'm generally against "my party = good" "other party = evil" type of thinking. They're all good buds with each other. Aren't we too old to fall for keyfabe?
Re: REDMAP
Goodspeed wrote:Whatever happened in history, in this case it was republicans who systematically undermined democracy and it's despicable. I'm not saying democrats are inherently better (although right now they do seem to have the interests of the people at heart more than the Rs do). I'm saying that gerrymandering shouldn't be possible and any system that allows it is broken.lejend wrote:Show hidden quotes
That's a debate about whether HoR should represent the people or the states, I think. But technically all those gerrymanderers were voted into office by the people weren't they?
I'm just suspicious about how when gerrymandering favored the Democrats, and Republicans complained about it but were told to shut up, that was okay, but now the tables have turned, and Democrats suddenly want to get rid of gerrymandering. Seems like a cynical political move, not really a fight for liberty. So I find it very difficult to sympathize.
Right now Republicans control every level of government, but are still at the mercy of the Democratic party, precisely because of undemocratic measures, such as the filibuster. Are Democrats for getting rid of that? I highly doubt it.
This blatant inconsistency shows that they're only for democracy when it benefits them.
I mean Republicans are too, but usually to a slightly lower extent.
But I'm generally against "my party = good" "other party = evil" type of thinking. They're all good buds with each other. Aren't we too old to fall for keyfabe?
Eh I don't necessarily disagree, (except with the highlighted part). I just don't sympathize with Democrats on this. They would probably do the same if they could.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests