US Politics: What it Takes (is sabotage)

[DanteGabriel]

Until Stag produces his certificate in statistics, I can't take him seriously.

I don't think even a dozen certificates could convince me to take him seriously.

[awesome possum]

Yes, it's all because of Fox News. That must be it. It couldn't be that the Democrats simply don't represent the views of the majority of voters in the majority of House districts.

Rural whites, evangelical Christians, and gun-owners find much of the Democratic agenda to be inimical and contrary to their interests. That's why they don't vote Democrat.

I'm curious where I said it's all because of Fox News. But hey, classic clueless rightwing reaction. Pick one part of a post that you feel you can attack with ease and ignore the actual relevant parts.

But hey, lets go with "it's all because of Fox News."

I wonder, if someone gets their news solely from the Faux source, what do they believe is the Democratic agenda? Socialism? Taking away guns? Letting them dirty Mexican illegals steal your jobs or your votes? Letting the gays get married and have sex right in front of your innocent heterosexual children? Create a new generation of Hitler youth groups? To make sure no one believes in God?

Yeah, I can imagine how "rural whites, evangelical Christians and gun-owners" (funny how they are all guaranteed Republican voters in your eyes) find much of the Democratic agenda to be contrary to their interests when their main source of news is a place where the VP of the company was quoted on a memo as saying, "it is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts."

ETA: fix links

[Sci-2]

*cough* Gerrymandering *cough*.

My understanding was that the gerrymandering by Republicans to win seats in the House was hard fact?

I think it's been noted in a few places, will see if there's a neutral source that describes how they did this.

[DanteGabriel]

My understanding was that the gerrymandering by Republicans to win seats in the House was hard fact?

I think it's been noted in a few places, will see if there's a neutral source that describes how they did this.

In 2012, approximately 58% of votes for the House of Representatives were for Democrats. But because of gerrymandering, Republicans maintained their sizable majority in the chamber. Cryptile's notion that America chose to give Republicans control of Congress is as wrongheaded and shitfilled as usual.

[thecryptile]

*cough* Gerrymandering *cough*.

Gerrymandering is something both parties engage in, so how does that explain the preponderance of Republican leaning House districts? No, it's just that the Dems have forsaken rural America; remember Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comments.

I'm curious where I said it's all because of Fox News. But hey, classic clueless rightwing reaction. Pick one part of a post that you feel you can attack with ease and ignore the actual relevant parts.

OK, but we both know you were talking about FOX News here:

They're not worried because they still have a huge reliable voting base whose main source of political information is a cable new channel that serves as the party's propaganda arm.

Taken out of context, you might have been talking about MSNBC and the Dems. Of course FOX News is much more popular than its crypto-Communist competition- that's what really galls liberals about FOX News.

Disarming the American people is a stated goal of Barack Obama. The reason Dems fight voter ID laws is because they have a long tradition of registering illegal aliens and the dead to vote Democrat. ACA is pretty much socialism, and the worst part is- it will actually increase health care costs and cost jobs.

I mainly get my news from PBS and the Internet.

[thecryptile]

In 2012, approximately 58% of votes for the House of Representatives were for Democrats.

Maybe, but you're ignoring the fact that much of this 58% were probably urbanites in safely gerrymandered Democratic districts.

[Sci-2]

Maybe, but you're ignoring the fact that much of this 58% were probably urbanites in safely gerrymandered Democratic districts.

We possibly do need a better metric than just percentage of votes...

I need to go back and read through the articles on this, will see what evidence backs up the claim.

[Galactus]

Maybe, but you're ignoring the fact that much of this 58% were probably urbanites in safely gerrymandered Democratic districts.

I'm unclear of what you're getting with this? Do you imply that democratic gerrymandering has lead to republican voters in those districts not voting?

Given the figures pointed out it seems pretty undisputable that gerrymandering favours republicans more than it does democrats. If not you'd expect democrats to hold 58% of the seats.

[Sad King Billy]

So let's see:

USA founding fathers: set up systems where gerrymandering is frequently used to give own party the max amount of seats in a state, and weaken opposing parties.

Napoleon: institutionalised and modernised administrative districts, which stand to this day.

[Galactus]

We possibly do need a better metric than just percentage of votes...

I need to go back and read through the articles on this, will see what evidence backs up the claim.

There's of course further issues with FPTP/personal elections in that they're not just voting for republicans or democrats but for specific candidates.

As an example, let's say we have five districts of equal size. In each one a democrat and a republican runs against each other.

In district A the democrat gets 70% of the votes, in district B 60%, in district C 49%, in district D 48% and in district E 47%.

Dems get a total of 53% of the votes, but reps win three out of five seats. The fact that candidate Dem A) wins in a landslide has no effect on any of the other races, since they're still competing for the same seat.

[Atreides]

Gerrymandering is something both parties engage in, so how does that explain the preponderance of Republican leaning House districts? No, it's just that the Dems have forsaken rural America; remember Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comments. OK, but we both know you were talking about FOX News here:Taken out of context, you might have been talking about MSNBC and the Dems. Of course FOX News is much more popular than its crypto-Communist competition- that's what really galls liberals about FOX News.

The Republicans popularity peaked in 2010 when anger at the Democrats and Obama was at its highest. In the 2010 elections they won numerous state legislatures. 2010 was a census year, so that was when districts were redrawn. Thus, in that critical census year the Republicans were able to redraw the majority of House districts to be in their favor. The Republicans have won the gerrymandering battle for this entire decade. This is one reason why state legislatures shouldn't be able to redraw House seats, because one wave year for one party in the Census year can entrench that party for a decade in the House despite the fact that the House is supposed to be more responsive to the American people with 2-year terms.

[Seli]

Gerrymandering is something both parties engage in, so how does that explain the preponderance of Republican leaning House districts? No, it's just that the Dems have forsaken rural America; remember Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comments.

The gerrymandering means that those rural Americans are over-represented in the house, it is easy to check this.

Why they are so prone to voting GOP is more complicated. It is probably related to the reason states that are net receivers from federal funds are likely to vote GOP.

I have an idea that it might have to do with people living in dense population areas have to work together and share to achieve a liveable environment. While rural populations can get away with less central organization in their day to day interactions.

[thecryptile]

I'm unclear of what you're getting with this? Do you imply that democratic gerrymandering has lead to republican voters in those districts not voting?

No, I'm implying that the Democrats are the City Party and the Republicans are the Country Party.

Given the figures pointed out it seems pretty undisputable that gerrymandering favours republicans more than it does democrats. If not you'd expect democrats to hold 58% of the seats.

No, Democrats are concentrated in urban areas; Republicans are spread out across the Rural Heartland.

Why they are so prone to voting GOP is more complicated.

No, it's not. It's like asking why African Americans are prone to voting Democrat. The Republicans don't represent African Americans, just as the Democrats don't represent rural whites. You vote for the party that represents your interests and beliefs best.

[Galactus]

No, Democrats are concentrated in urban areas; Republicans are spread out across the Rural Heartland.

And this has what to do with the price of fish? Republicans recieve a greater portion of the seats than they do of the votes. That's a pretty clear effect of the distortionary effects of the FPTP system, IE: Gerrymandering.

[Seli]

No, I'm implying that the Democrats are the City Party and the Republicans are the Country Party.

No, Democrats are concentrated in urban areas; Republicans are spread out across the Rural Heartland. No, it's not. It's like asking why African Americans are prone to voting Democrat. The Republicans don't represent African Americans, just as the Democrats don't represent rural whites. You vote for the party that represents your interests and beliefs best.

Yes, of course. But why the rural population in general seems so convinced that the GOP would represent them best bemuses me.

[Maltaran]

I suspect it's more that they've been convinced that the Democrats don't, and since it's a two party system they then vote for the other one.

[SkynJay]

I do get a kick from seeing a conservative flat out say the GOP doesn't represent African Americans.

[Sad King Billy]

My question to you guys is: are the saboteurs going to succeed in rallying/pressuring the majority of republican members of parliament for their goal?

[DanteGabriel]

Gerrymandering is something both parties engage in, so how does that explain the preponderance of Republican leaning House districts?

In 2010, Republicans controlled enough state governments to manipulate the gerrymandering to their advantage. That's how.

Ignorance of this simple fact, combined with your mind-numbingly stupid response to the 58% figure, is pretty telling. It tells me you don't know a fucking thing about the issue of gerrymandering nor are you able to actually process facts in a rational fashion. You should probably sit out the gerrymandering debate until you're not so embarrassingly ignorant.

[Altherion]

My question to you guys is: are the saboteurs going to succeed in rallying/pressuring the majority of republican members of parliament for their goal?

I very much doubt it. If it was being seriously considered, there wouldn't be so many Republicans openly and harshly critical of it. There is a substantial number of people who would prefer ACA repealed, but not many of them would risk a government shutdown over it. Also, I'm not aware of a precedent for withholding funds to eliminate a specific law -- this could get out of hand quickly.