Shryke Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Or the correct response is a Democrat skewed gerrymander that makes it hard for republicans to win districts. This is perfectly possible if dems bother to vote in 2020. But it's unlikely since dems gave up all state houses in 2010 and all the state district boundaries have been even more viciously gerrymandering to make it impossible for dems to win those legislatures ever again. The only possible way to make it not bad is to win governors. But most of the governors are up for election in 2018 not 2020 so dems won't bother to vote then either and the gerrymanders will remain mostly in place for 2022. Dems might have a chance to win back the house as soon as 2042, but not before. Dems will vote in 2020 cause it's a presidential year. All this is moot because all those republican controlled states are going to switch to a Maine Nebraska electoral model before 2016 so the max evs dems can win in Ohio and Pennsylvania is three or four each. That will make it impossible for dems to win the presidency as well. Jesus man, just get the noose out now and spare us the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Right, but if a dense populace thousands of miles away is governing my life, why would I voluntarily choose to enter into such a confederation? Like if we had a world government and the billions of Chinese outvoted everyone on everything. The point of the Senate/Electoral College was to ensure geographic representation (and also that the state legislatures would have representation). Well, why did early America take a step towards greater proportionality and centralization? Because of increasing identification with American nationalism coming out of the Revolutionary War, combined with the obvious ineffectiveness of a weak central government and the inability of state governments to handle nation-wide issues, even state mishandling of issues. (some of which sound very familiar today) The Senate definitely was meant to keep some amount of geographic/state representation, but this was retaining a feature of the old system in spite of a movement towards proportionality. If the only interest had been ensuring geographic representation, the House would not have been created. Nor would the electoral college have been constructed on the basis that it was, using population to apportion electors. Additionally, while there were of course differences between the states and regions, it is hardly the case that populations were thousands of miles away. Most of the population at that time lived along the eastern seaboard, with the great majority between the Upper South and southern New England. Now with an even stronger national identity & cultural homogeneity, and modern communication and travel making even greater distance far less significant than it was in the 18th century, there is very little question that we're going to remain one nation for the foreseeable future. You ask why a distant dense population should get to govern- why not ask why a distant, sparse, and smaller population should get to govern? The answer is that it shouldn't, it's plainly undemocratic for smaller populations to disproportionately influence the apportionment of power. Or the correct response is a Democrat skewed gerrymander that makes it hard for republicans to win districts. This is perfectly possible if dems bother to vote in 2020. But it's unlikely since dems gave up all state houses in 2010 and all the state district boundaries have been even more viciously gerrymandering to make it impossible for dems to win those legislatures ever again. The only possible way to make it not bad is to win governors. But most of the governors are up for election in 2018 not 2020 so dems won't bother to vote then either and the gerrymanders will remain mostly in place for 2022. Dems might have a chance to win back the house as soon as 2042, but not before.All this is moot because all those republican controlled states are going to switch to a Maine Nebraska electoral model before 2016 so the max evs dems can win in Ohio and Pennsylvania is three or four each. To your first point- a Democratic gerrymander might be most expedient from a partisan perspective, but it would be just as unfair and wouldn't solve the underlying problem. We'd just be waiting around for the next round of gerrymandering. To your second- I think on this issue your usual doomsaying will turn out to be just plain incorrect. It would be far too controversial. Republicans will not want to do it any state they think they might win, nor will swing state politicians be willing to undermine their states' importance in national elections this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Or the correct response is a Democrat skewed gerrymander that makes it hard for republicans to win districts. This is perfectly possible if dems bother to vote in 2020. But it's unlikely since dems gave up all state houses in 2010 and all the state district boundaries have been even more viciously gerrymandering to make it impossible for dems to win those legislatures ever again. The only possible way to make it not bad is to win governors. But most of the governors are up for election in 2018 not 2020 so dems won't bother to vote then either and the gerrymanders will remain mostly in place for 2022. Dems might have a chance to win back the house as soon as 2042, but not before.All this is moot because all those republican controlled states are going to switch to a Maine Nebraska electoral model before 2016 so the max evs dems can win in Ohio and Pennsylvania is three or four each. That will make it impossible for dems to win the presidency as well. Wow...those are some predictions. I think it's, uh, premature to make predictions about who will win Congress in 2042. As to the EC changes, there was a bunch of talk about that in 2011 and nothing happened. I'm not sure it's any more likely today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Dems will vote in 2020 cause it's a presidential year. They'll vote in 2020, sure. But most governor's races aren't in 2020, they'll be in 2018. If Democrats don't turnout for the 2018 midterm, they will have very little say in the redistricting, which occurrs in 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 They'll vote in 2020, sure. But most governor's races aren't in 2020, they'll be in 2018. If Democrats don't turnout for the 2018 midterm, they will have very little say in the redistricting, which occurrs in 2021. I thought the legislature had the bigger say in redistricting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I thought the legislature had the bigger say in redistricting. Yes, and we vote for most of those every two years. So I do not think that 2018 is the make-or-break year for redistricting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I thought the legislature had the bigger say in redistricting. The state legislatures draw the maps (except for the few states that went for a nonpartisan or bipartisan commission), but the governor has to sign off on them. If the governor doesn't like the maps, s/he can veto them until the legislature comes up with something better. And since the state legislatures are mostly out-of-reach for Democrats right now, they need to win governors' races to get a seat at the table. Also, while some of the state legislatures are up in 2020 and maybe could benefit from presidential year turnout to overcome gerrymandering, there are quite a few that aren't. The governors' races are key, and the only way Democrats will do well in the 2018 midterm is if there's a Republican president that's pissed off everybody, a la 2006, or if Democrats start appealing more to white people; staying under 40% approval there is fine for presidential elections, but not midterms. Fortunately, that seems like it be fixed for the short-term at least, lots of white people like Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think some of these predictions are awfully premature. What happened last week was one election, in which the GOP did a bit better than expected. It's not the end of the Democrats, just as 2008 was not the end of the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The hybrid of "State" winner takes all used in Maine and Nebraska is interesting. The results of would be more representative of the actual vote than the existing "Winner of State" takes all electoral votes system currently used by 48 states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think some of these predictions are awfully premature. What happened last week was one election, in which the GOP did a bit better than expected. It's not the end of the Democrats, just as 2008 was not the end of the Republicans. They aren't doomed, and I'm certainly not as gloomy about the party's longterm chances as some people in this thread. But Democrats have only done well in one of the past four midterms, and that occurred as a reaction to just complete Republican mismanagement after they controlled the House, Senate, and White House all at once for the first time since the 1920s. Basically, not an easily repeatable event. And when looking back at when Democrats did well in midterms just as often as Republicans, they had a much different coalition, one that didn't have nearly as large a turnout problem in non-presidential elections as the current one does. The hybrid of "State" winner takes all used in Maine and Nebraska is interesting. The results of would be more representative of the actual vote than the existing "Winner of State" takes all electoral votes system currently used by 48 states. That's only true if its either proportional based just on the overall vote. Basing it on partisan congressional lines is no more representative than what we have now; and the current proposal, of only implementing it in swing states and blue presidential states with Republican state control (like Michigan) is just a rank partisan exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Fez,Limited implimintation is clearly a partisan exercise. No argument otherwise. I'm simply saying district by district is more representative that the State level "winner takes all" method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Fez,Limited implimintation is clearly a partisan exercise. No argument otherwise. I'm simply saying district by district is more representative that the State level "winner takes all" method. How? All it does is change the specific way your vote "doesn't count". Now instead of being in a blue state, you are in a red district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 If all electors were apportioned by Congressional district in 2012, Obama would have lost in the electoral college while winning the popular vote by 5 million votes. No doubt that the electoral college then overrepresented his popular vote victory, but at least it got the result 'right.' With fair Congressional districts, I agree that it would be a better system (but I think the interstate popular vote compact is the best solution). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 For those that didn't, catch it, this was pretty classic.David Letterman’s monologue last night included some observations that stood out for me:“This is what happens when we have the midterm elections. The Republicans, of course, have turned against Obama, and the Democrats have also turned against Obama. That’s a lonely, lonely gig being president, ladies and gentlemen.“Take a look at this: gas under $3 a gallon – under $3 a gallon. Unemployment under 6%, whoever thought? Stock market breaking records every day. No wonder the guy is so unpopular.”As the saying goes, it’s funny because it’s true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Letterman, the tired old court jester (replaced by a younger court jester) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 It isn't new but this actually expands on the joke in detail. Obama is the best worst president ever. Clearly I’m missing something, a huge bed of terrifying data to prove all these respectable charts and graphs wrong. But where is it? I’ve heard Mr. Newport Beach’s bizarre lament a thousand times, but I’ve yet to see a solid batch of evidence that proves Obama’s outright failure, or the nation’s savage decline. I see a blip about food stamps, I see a few weak economic signs here and there, but mostly, since 2009, it all’s been somewhere between timidly and shockingly positive. Did God smite us for gay marriage? Did the abortion factories, death panels and Nazi Kenyan socialist brain-washing farms steal my very soul? Hard to tell with all this perfect sunshine in my eyes.The bottom line seems obvious: Much to the GOP’s bitter revulsion, it turns out a calm, intellectual black man really can run an entire country – certainly far better than an inarticulate Texas bumbler, and even in the face of what is easily the most obstructionist, hateful, acidic and often downright racist Congress in modern memory. Quite an achievement, really.It’s curious, no? The unmitigated hate for Obama comes from the right, but the real disappointment comes from the left. It’s we liberals who seem to have the most legitimate gripes with a man we all thought would be far more radical and revolutionary. From the NSA to drone warfare to a shocking lack of transparency, a shameless kowtowing to Wall Street, a lack of serious education reform and barely a blip about the environment (until very recently) – Obama has been a far more mixed bag for the left than anyone wants to admit.But right now, that seems like quibbling. To hear Mr. Newport Beach tell it, my president is a downright monster. Who cares if he ended the war, saved the economy, restored America’s stature in the world, nailed Osama bin Laden, invested billions in clean energy, partially reformed what is still the most expensive, least effective health care system in the industrialized world, or made the rich even richer? The guy’s the worst thing to ever happen to America. I mean, obviously. Now who wants more wine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Fez,Limited implimintation is clearly a partisan exercise. No argument otherwise. I'm simply saying district by district is more representative that the State level "winner takes all" method. Maybe if the districts weren't so screwed up this would be true, but when you win the popular vote and still lose by 20+ districts, something is definitely not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 It isn't new but this actually expands on the joke in detail. Obama is the best worst president ever. Even that is exaggerating it. The left generally approves of Obama quite strongly. The right just absolutely hates his guts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Think the point for me is if anyone truly has a gripe with Obama it should be the left. It's what makes the GOP's false narrative and bleating from the Rush disciples all the more absurd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 6 bills the GOP should pass #4 would have to make sure insurance still covered it #5 against this #6 would have to be VERY clear on to whom exactly this applied. There are tons of low level government employees, and they have every right to look for better paying regular jobs. In fact, unless it was applied just to lobbyist I don't think I'd agree with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.