Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
That is another way of dealing with your failures.Some states have already changed how they count electoral votes.....and that didn't need an amendment. See Nebraska.
That is another way of dealing with your failures.Some states have already changed how they count electoral votes.....and that didn't need an amendment. See Nebraska.
About what?Ask Elbridge Gerry(D) Massachussets.
Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, in which capacity he signed the “gerrymander” law into effect, from 1810-1812. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828.Ask Elbridge Gerry(D) Massachussets.
If the voting districts are drawn by impartial panels instead of politicians, and we all vote under the exact same rules, then you have a deal.I agree with the caveat that elections be on only one day, require voter id that verifies citizenship, and be cast on paper ballots.
You lost.Meaning:
1. I stand a better chance of winning.
2. I can cheat in all states.
3. I can't win unless I can cancel you vote.
4. Statistics show in need to cheat in a (D) controlled House and Senate in a Midterm.
Sure, as long as you explicitly and in great detail describe what "impartial panels" means.If the voting districts are drawn by impartial panels instead of politicians, and we all vote under the exact same rules, then you have a deal.
Sure, as long as you explicitly and in great detail describe what "impartial panels" means.
No, these commissioners were selected. I want the commissioners elected directly by the voters and I want NO court jurisdiction on the final results.
That would undo the intent. If voter elect them they by default they will be partisan. Also, they may not be as adept as others who get voted into office. Moreover, if the state is very lopsided in regard to voters in each party, then you have the voters undoing any effort toward fairness in elections in the legislator races along with the executive race. Because voters are not looking for impartial electors. They want electors that will give an advantage to their preferred party.No, these commissioners were selected. I want the commissioners elected directly by the voters and I want NO court jurisdiction on the final results.
And now I must add I want the algorithms by which they draw the boundaries also to be put up for a vote by all voters on a line item basis and again NO court jurisdiction on the final results of a fair vote.
You agree and we indeed do have a deal.
So no fairness only cheating for your side.That would undo the intent.
Do you really think that voting (i.e. democracy) for representation on a commission is MORE partisan than individuals selected by party affiliation by politicians? Yeah, no.That would undo the intent. If voter elect them they by default they will be partisan.
Have commision seats assigned to a party (or no party) but have the people vote for who fills those commission seats. Get rid of back room deals. As a matter of fact communications between elected officials and commissioners could be made illegal.Also, they may not be as adept as others who get voted into office. Moreover, if the state is very lopsided in regard to voters in each party, then you have the voters undoing any effort toward fairness in elections in the legislator races along with the executive race.
I want the district drawing algorithms voted on and made public. I want courts relegated to less than observer status.Because voters are not looking for impartial electors. They want electors that will give an advantage to their preferred party.
Yes, and what is the end result? It causes gridlock in Congress-along with the filibuster and them being able to disenfranchise voters.Gerrymandering is how the states control their House of Representatives elections...not the presidential election.
Of course they would be because voting itself is a partisan act. You are not going to reach a non-partisan result by starting off with a partisan act.Do you really think that voting (i.e. democracy) for representation on a commission is MORE partisan than individuals selected by party affiliation by politicians? Yeah, no.
People what someone who is going to fight for their side, not someone who is adept at making concessions on their behalf. It's better that we have people who don't care how it ends up, only that it ends up equatable.Have commision seats assigned to a party (or no party) but have the people vote for who fills those commission seats. Get rid of back room deals. As a matter of fact communications between elected officials and commissioners could be made illegal.
Sure. But you will just end up with conspiracy theorist who prey upon people lack of knowledge of that just like they prey upon the public's lack of knowledge about medicine in this pandemic.I want the district drawing algorithms voted on and made public. I want courts relegated to less than observer status.
Filibuster is only in the Senate.Yes, and what is the end result? It causes gridlock in Congress-along with the filibuster and them being able to disenfranchise voters.
As you know, the Senate is part of Congress. But it starts in the House.Filibuster is only in the Senate.
Democracy is NOT a partisan act. Voting is NOT a partisan act. But even if you think so it is far less partisan than politicians SELECTING commission members. Partisanship is most effective outside of a voting regimen.Of course they would be because voting itself is a partisan act. You are not going to reach a non-partisan result by starting off with a partisan act.
More likely to happen when commissioners are voted for and NOT selected.It's better that we have people who don't care how it ends up, only that it ends up equatable.
I don't see the analogy.Sure. But you will just end up with conspiracy theorist who prey upon people lack of knowledge of that just like they prey upon the public's lack of knowledge about medicine in this pandemic.
Voting is THE PARTISAN act that begets all other forms of partisanship. We are literally picking a side to support and\or to oppose when we vote.Democracy is NOT a partisan act. Voting is NOT a partisan act. But even if you think so it is far less partisan than politicians SELECTING commission members. Partisanship is most effective outside of a voting regimen.
More likely to happen when commissioners are voted for and NOT selected.
I don't see the analogy.
Filibuster is not available to members of the House.As you know, the Senate is part of Congress. But it starts in the House.
Partisanship comes from having parties that can create stronger than ordinary support for a party or person. There are many, many people called independents who vote not on the basis of partisanship, right? Voting itself is NOT partisan because then they would call it partisaning and not voting.Voting is THE PARTISAN act that begets all other forms of partisanship. We are literally picking a side to support and\or to oppose when we vote.
Interesting world that you live in but the definitions are just yours. They aren't shared by the common reality of the rest of us I don't think.It's the whole point of voting. Picking someone who supports the side you are on or opposes the side you are against.
What is that again? What would happen?It's not an analogy. That is exactly what would happen if the results did not please a particular side.
No. I don't want the people who draw up the boundaries of districts to be selected. I want them elected. Your idea would be to send us back from democracy and back to the time when state legislatures selected the state's Federal Senator directly and was not voted in by the people. As much as possible should be subject to election. The days of selection went away with the loss of the Christian faith in this country.It is best to take this part of politics out of the political arena.