Page 1 of 1
Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:20 am
by CAA Flagship
Supreme Court appears ready to shake up how election districts are drawn
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sup ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Supreme Court sounded poised Tuesday to order a significant shift in how political power is allocated in this country, one that could give more clout to rural and mostly Republican areas at the expense of Democratic-dominated cities.
The justices heard arguments in a Texas case that could force all 50 states to change the way they draw election districts for members of the House of Representatives, state legislatures, city councils and other local bodies.
At issue before the court was the basic question of who gets counted when election districts are drawn: Is it all people, including children, prisoners and immigrants who are not eligible to vote? Or is it only adult citizens who are eligible voters?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:57 am
by bluehenbillk
Oh well, this is small potatoes. I thought from reading the thread title that the Supreme Court was going to rule on gerrymandering. Move along, not much to see here....
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:01 am
by kalm
If it takes power away from city folk, I'm down.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:06 am
by YoUDeeMan
kalm wrote:If it takes power away from city folk, I'm down.
Racis...I mean...Cityist!
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:29 am
by CAA Flagship
kalm wrote:If it takes power away from city folk, I'm down.
When did you become a Conk?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:46 am
by kalm
CAA Flagship wrote:kalm wrote:If it takes power away from city folk, I'm down.
When did you become a Conk?
I've been a Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservative for years!
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:58 am
by CAA Flagship
kalm wrote:CAA Flagship wrote:
When did you become a Conk?
I've been a Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservative for years!
How many opportunities have you had to elect an official with their views?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:35 am
by LeadBolt
CAA Flagship wrote:kalm wrote:
I've been a Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservative for years!
How many opportunities have you had to elect an official with their views?
By only voting for Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservatives, you can avoid voting all together and therefore, in your own mind escape blame for the idiots we have had in office and the harm they cause.
The only problem with this strategy is shown in the often quoted maxium by Edward Burke "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:45 am
by kalm
LeadBolt wrote:CAA Flagship wrote:
How many opportunities have you had to elect an official with their views?
By only voting for Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservatives, you can avoid voting all together and therefore, in your own mind escape blame for the idiots we have had in office and the harm they cause.
The only problem with this strategy is shown in the often quoted maxium by Edward Burke "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edward Burke was a Democratic Chicago City Councilman.
Perhaps you meant Ivytalk's favorite boy, Edmund Burke?
Regardless, nothing changes if people continue to shrug their shoulders and only vote for the two parties because they think they don't have other options. If Trump were to run 3rd Party I'd vote for him in a heartbeat just to give the idea some legs.
Perhaps you're feeling bad about your own voting record, LB?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:01 am
by kalm
Here's some more Burke for you to consider:
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Burke didn't like Democracy either. There's a great quote where he describes how giving a butcher or some other mundane occupation (common man) the right to vote does society great harm. I'll keep digging for it because the irony of quoting Burke regarding not voting for the establishment is delicious.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:08 am
by Ibanez
LeadBolt wrote:CAA Flagship wrote:
How many opportunities have you had to elect an official with their views?
By only voting for Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservatives, you can avoid voting all together and therefore, in your own mind escape blame for the idiots we have had in office and the harm they cause.
The only problem with this strategy is shown in the often quoted maxium by Edward Burke "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, not Edward.
He also said, "Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed."
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:50 am
by LeadBolt
kalm wrote:LeadBolt wrote:
By only voting for Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservatives, you can avoid voting all together and therefore, in your own mind escape blame for the idiots we have had in office and the harm they cause.
The only problem with this strategy is shown in the often quoted maxium by Edward Burke "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
1). Edward Burke was a Democratic Chicago City Councilman.
Perhaps you meant Ivytalk's favorite boy, Edmund Burke?
Regardless, nothing changes if people continue to shrug their shoulders and only vote for the two parties because they think they don't have other options.
2). If Trump were to run 3rd Party I'd vote for him in a heartbeat just to give the idea some legs.
3). Perhaps you're feeling bad about your own voting record, LB?
1). You are correct.
2). I'm glad to hear that, but I probably won't join you. I don't think the Donald has the right temperament to be President.
3). Not really feeling bad about my voting record, only the mess the country is in today courtesy of our august leadership over an extended period of time.
4). I understand that Burke was not a fan of a pure democracy. I personally feel voting should be limited to those legal US citizens who pay taxes, and would prefer to see nominating conventions, rather than primaries.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:42 pm
by Ivytalk
kalm wrote:LeadBolt wrote:
By only voting for Jeffersonian/Rooseveltian conservatives, you can avoid voting all together and therefore, in your own mind escape blame for the idiots we have had in office and the harm they cause.
The only problem with this strategy is shown in the often quoted maxium by Edward Burke "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edward Burke was a Democratic Chicago City Councilman.
Perhaps you meant Ivytalk's favorite boy, Edmund Burke?
Regardless, nothing changes if people continue to shrug their shoulders and only vote for the two parties because they think they don't have other options.
If Trump were to run 3rd Party I'd vote for him in a heartbeat just to give the idea some legs.
Perhaps you're feeling bad about your own voting record, LB?
What's your boy Gary Johnson up to this year?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:04 pm
by kalm
Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:
Edward Burke was a Democratic Chicago City Councilman.
Perhaps you meant Ivytalk's favorite boy, Edmund Burke?
Regardless, nothing changes if people continue to shrug their shoulders and only vote for the two parties because they think they don't have other options.
If Trump were to run 3rd Party I'd vote for him in a heartbeat just to give the idea some legs.
Perhaps you're feeling bad about your own voting record, LB?
What's your boy Gary Johnson up to this year?
IDK.
Climbing mountains?
Competing in triathlons?
Laughing at your party?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:10 pm
by JohnStOnge
To me it seems pretty obvious that it should be based on eligible voters. Why should it be otherwise? I don't see how one could even make a reasonable argument for that.
So like 100,000 thousand eligible voters in one area should get more representation than 100,000 eligible voters in another area because the first area had a bunch of people not eligible to vote in it?
Is anybody here going to defend that concept?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:16 pm
by CAA Flagship
JohnStOnge wrote:To me it seems pretty obvious that it should be based on eligible voters. Why should it be otherwise? I don't see how one could even make a reasonable argument for that.
Maybe people should be able to vote for their legal dependents that are not eligible to vote.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:20 pm
by JohnStOnge
CAA Flagship wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:To me it seems pretty obvious that it should be based on eligible voters. Why should it be otherwise? I don't see how one could even make a reasonable argument for that.
Maybe people should be able to vote for their legal dependents that are not eligible to vote.
Isn't that kind of like giving people who are not eligible to vote a de facto vote?
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:26 pm
by JohnStOnge
Think about it. Are you going to say that an eligible voter should have more "influence" because he or she lives in a district where there are a bunch of people who are NOT eligible to vote? I just don't see how anybody can support that concept unless they're just a Democrat and realize that it helps Democrats.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:33 pm
by 93henfan
I didn't read the article, but I did listen to a news story about this on radio in DC. The goal of the initiative was to marginalize largely hispanic districts in Texas because they have a high number of non eligible voters and the eligibles vote more democrat.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:38 pm
by JohnStOnge
93henfan wrote:I didn't read the article, but I did listen to a news story about this on radio in DC. The goal of the initiative was to marginalize largely hispanic districts in Texas because they have a high number of non eligible voters and the eligibles vote more democrat.
So why should an eligible voter in a district like that have their vote count for more because they happen to live in an area where there are a bunch of people who are not eligible to vote?
Do you really think that's right?
Especially if what we're talking about is districts where there are a bunch of illegal immigrants. And you and I both know that's probably what we are talking about when we're talking about Texas.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:41 pm
by 93henfan
JohnStOnge wrote:93henfan wrote:I didn't read the article, but I did listen to a news story about this on radio in DC. The goal of the initiative was to marginalize largely hispanic districts in Texas because they have a high number of non eligible voters and the eligibles vote more democrat.
So why should an eligible voter in a district like that have their vote count for more because they happen to live in an area where there are a bunch of people who are not eligible to vote?
Do you really think that's right?
I was just giving Cliffs Notes. I hate politics and stopped voting in presidential elections. I put myself in the penalty box after I helped elect Dumb and Dumber.
Re: Election Districts
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:28 am
by CID1990
If they de-gerrymandered North Carolina it would go red forever.