How you are being robbed of your right to vote fairly

LOL.... Did you say this longingly into your own mirror? It seems more like you don't have an argument, or more succinctly, you have no way to further your argument absent depending on others to do it for you. Face it. You're the voice of tyranny here. If you believe that the rest of the nation should be able to be controlled by 10-15 counties of the US, that's your wet dream. Keep it to yourself.

 

Depends upon what you mean by "successful".

In terms of Income Disparity, not at all. The US is the worst of all developed-nations.

Bollocks.

Moving right along ...

 

You're joking, I hope.

Buy a dictionary ...

 

Yes it does depend on what you mean by successful. I don't think income equality is a very good measure.

 

Not at all. It is fair that unequal input results for unequal rewards.

 

But Income Inequality most certain is ... !

 

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

Whichever party dominates within each state tries to gerrymander the voting precincts to maximize their getting their candidate elected.The GOP mhas had by far control of the majority of states for quite some time now,so they have pretty much redrawn most states to maximize their potential.But law suits brought in states like Pa. and N.Carolina have been successful in getting maps redrawn recently.

 

A MISCONCEPTION OF VOTING JUSTICE

Gerrymandering is an artificial manipulation of the popular vote and is not allowed in any other "developed democracy" on earth.

But here is why, in the history of Supreme Court decisions, the US has NEVER BEEN ABLE TO OUTLAW GERRYMANDERING - Wikipedia Legality of Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court of America consistently finds reasons not to apply a strict interpretation of the law. And yet, gerrymandering applies ONLY TO A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. In fact, some states have outlawed gerrymandering individually. From the above Wikipedia linked article:

Which leads me to insist that the US has a a tragic misconception of Voting Justice at the level of the Supreme Court that is dominated by Replicants ...

 

Jesus, I didn't know you were one of those David Ike replicant conspiracy theorists. Massive loss of respect.

 

SAD BUT TRUE

And if the Replicant majority in the Supreme Court would get off their collective-asses and understand the meaning of True Democracy, they might also comprehend that just-because a crucial mistake in electing the PotUS was made in Amendment 12 of the Constitution (1812) it must be changed.

But, how is that done? Some Americans, due to insufficient education in Civics think it cannot be done. Wrong. It can.

What could be done: The Supreme Court rules that the Winner-Takes-All EC-vote is indeed unlawful due to its inherent unfairness. And also, gerrymandering of voting districts in state and local plebiscites is an unacceptable manipulation of the popular-vote.

But, it appears that the above aint-gonna-happin either because the Replicants have managed to "pack" the Supreme Court.

All of which is the turgidly-'n-sadly true-story of a 3rd rate "democracy" !!!

 

The electoral college is just a way to elect the HOS the same way all majoritarian countries do. But since the executive is not appointed by the legislature in the US, clearly they can't just have confidence in the House. So they created the same damn thing with the EC.

For instance, in 1990 Australian PM Bob Hawke lost the popular vote. The popular vote is as relevant as the potato vote, even in most countries abroad.

Centralised democracy is no more democratic than localised democracy.

 

30% is immoral, much less 70%. It's their money, not yours. Thief.

 

Gerrymandering once ensured rural communities were represented and not shut out of government by population centers in coastal areas.

Democrsts love gerrymandering in states Democrsts run.

Gerrymandering is commonly used to ensure a quota of minority representatives. Many of the current minority Democrat Representatives wouldn't have a prayer of being elected without it.

Democrats don't want to end Gerrymandering. They want to control it.

 

I'll learn to live without your respect.

But the one-liner sarcasm is, no doubt, the American way of evidencing "I aint got a clue ..."

 

MANIPULATIONS OF THE POPULAR-VOTE

You learned that in a Replicant high-school course?

The popular-vote determines all political election in the US except one - the Presidency. Which is or should be a National Vote. Not a local one!

Of course, but that was the rule of Amlerica's "political game" from the get-go. That is Amendment 12 in 1812 that was passed by the state-populations at that time.

But who, also at that time, had the faintest notion of how ether gerrymandering or the EC would ever warp the popular vote.

Which is what it has done since 1812, with the effect of having elected 5 presidents that were losers of the popular-vote.

Had that happened in a football game in the US, the crowd would have invaded the playing field to halt the game.

Which is what we should do ...

Blah, blah, blah.

I blame both parties for having accepted such inane rules-of-the-game, gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Both parties are wrong not to promote their destitution ... !

PS: Why do you think that most of Europe's countries followed Uncle Sam's lead to "democratic freedom" often from under an omnipotent monarch whose family had been controlling the country for centuries? But when it came to establishing a democracy, not one of them instituted ether gerrymandering or an Electoral College. They were obvious from the very beginning to be non-democratic mechanisms to manipulate the popular-vote!

 

This idea is a rather naked attempt to allow large blue cities to vote for the representation of more rural red areas. Let's take Oregon as just one example. Here are the 5 congressional districts ...



The four districts to the west are consistently held by Democrats. The large one to the east is consistently held by a Republican. The small yellow district is Portland, the largest population center. If 5 representatives to Congress were elected by a statewide popular vote, effectively, Portland would be deciding who would represent eastern Oregon, and the people of eastern Oregon would lose the representative of their choice. Oregon would be represented by 5 Democrats instead of 4 Democrats and one Republican.

The same thing would happen in CA and WA.

Let's look at New York state. It has 9 Republican and 17 Democrat representatives in the House. If those 26 representatives were elected by a statewide popular vote, they'd all be Democrats, owing to the vote of the New York City area. The rest of the state would be denied representation by a member of the party of their choice. To illustrate that, here is how they voted in the 2016 election ...



Effectively, if there was no districting, the cities would rule national politics with an iron fist. As things are now, they already have a huge voice, but their power must be shared. Not so if we get rid of districting.

The pendulum swings. Democrats will win Congress and the Presidency in the future. When they do, watch all this talk of eliminating districts and the Electoral College fade away.

For now, it's just sour grapes over 2016.

 

Wrong. Again.

Come to Europe, where there is NO SUCH THING AS GERRYMANDERING OR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Find me ONE INSTANCE where what you say above is the proven case!

Europe was devastated after WW2. So those countries rebuilding from the ground up had to decide how to remake themselves.

They uniformly chose democracies, largely because they were freed from the yoke of Nazi Germany by two of them (the US and UK), but also because Communism was a monolithic menace in both Russia and China.

But neither did they want the US variety. Because they saw very well through the manipulation of the popular-vote by both gerrymandering and the Electoral College!

 

But the U.S. is not Europe. We have states that are larger than European countries. We have regions that are far larger than European countries. We have cultural differences in different areas of the country.

And no, I am not wrong again. I gave you examples and showed maps of voting patterns. It is a fact that smaller cities and rural areas would lose their representation to the big cities in many areas. That is not even debatable. That fact gives an advantage to Democrats.

Let's reverse reality for a moment ....

Ask yourself if you would support what you're saying if the big cities were dominated by conservative right wingers. Would you support having those huge conservative population centers deciding who represented the Democratic rural areas? Be honest. You would be advocating for the diminishment of the Democratic Party in national politics.

Our government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". But "the people" are not just San Francisco, L.A., Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and New York City. "The people" are diverse in their lifestyles and political thinking. If we let the cities decide everything, we would no longer be a country that was governed "by the people"; we would be a one-party country governed by what was tantamount to a dictatorship.

This country rebelled against a dictatorship once.

This system we have waters down the power of the cities and gives representation to "the people"; that is, the diverse whole, not an all-powerful segment who live in cities. At the same time, it waters down the political power of large, mostly rural, geographical areas by giving more representatives to populous areas. It actually waters down the power of both sides. This relative equity thwarts one side from becoming permanently all-powerful. Hence, we are governed by "the people" in a much more "whole" or inclusive sense. It forces both Republicans and Democrats to give respect to the other side, because they are sharing power.

Using Oregon as an example again, those people in eastern Oregon have chosen someone who represents their views on taxation, matters of war and peace, farming and ranching and forestry, and others. Those views differ from the majority in western Oregon. What you wish to do is to deny them that representation by eliminating their district. And it surely would deny them, unquestionably. Again, it's not even debatable. The people of that region would be left with no representation at all. That is not governance "of, by, and for the people." That is a one-party dictatorship. We've seen those kinds of countries in the world, haven't we?

Seth

 

There are sooooo many similarities between the economic and political structures that it would amaze.

What Europe does not yet have an Executive Head.

But when that does finally happen, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that there will be anything even remotely like an Electoral College.

I simply do not understand why Americans put with illogic of the EC and its manipulation of the popular-vote. As well has having a Supreme Court that does not have the courage to make the gerrymandering illegal. (When already two state Supreme Courts in the US have done so.)

And I wont even mention BiPartisan Gerrymandering!

Why can't we leave good-people to choose their political representatives at all levels simply and fairly but directly. Is that too much to ask of a "supposed-democracy" ... ?

 

ooooh! 5 of 45, the system must be broke <sarcasm>

 

Well, LafayetteBis, your defense of democracy is inspiring, but you are ignoring the facts and information I have provided for you. I gave you multiple examples of states where electing our representatives to the House by statewide vote would disenfranchise millions of more conservative voters, putting the entire political destiny of the state into one party.

I also asked you to hypothetically reverse the situation, imagining that large urban centers were the conservative areas, and the small towns and rural areas were the liberal areas. And I asked you if you would still support eliminating districts, knowing that, if we did that, Democratic seats would be lost to the Republicans, probably forever. You ignored that question as well.

And you also ignored my remarks about a government "of, by, and for the people".... all of the people, that represents a diverse cultural and economic amalgamation of people and the regions they live in. And you ignored the dangers of one-party rule by one segment of the population.

Sen. Ben Sasse recently gave an interesting speech, and, though he didn't mention the EC, he talked about the roles of the 3 branches of government as envisioned by our Founders. And he blamed much of our division and political strife on the Congress itself, for it has abandoned its function.

The Executive branch is charged with executing the laws of Congress, and it may fight wars that Congress authorizes.

The Judicial branch is supposed to be non-political, interpreting the laws and ruling on their constitutionality.

The political branch is the Legislative branch. It is distinctly political. It is supposed to be a bit rough and tumble.

But the Congress has deliberately abdicated its role for fear of being held responsible for what it does because its members only care about getting reelected. And, they have deliberately given more and more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to independently carry out their own political agendas.

And this is why we place so much importance on presidential elections and judicial nominees. It's because the Congress won't do its job. Congress wants the other two branches to do their job for them, absolving them of any blame or responsibility. Taking a stand on things entails political risk, and today's Congress won't do it.

So, if the Congress was actually doing what it is supposed to do, if it would actually stand up, it wouldn't really matter all that much who the President was. And, as a result, we wouldn't be stressing over the EC all that much either. The real battleground would be in the Congress - where it is supposed to be.

Here's Sasse's speech. It's worth a listen.

 

THE UNADULTERATED OUTCOME OF THE POPULAR VOTE

Europe has a population size 60% LARGER THAN THE US. And population-wise it is the largest Social Democracy on Earth!

The size of a population, small, medium or large MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the matter of democracy. Which is based upon the notion of the UNADULTERATED OUTCOME OF A POPULAR VOTE - and no manipulation of that rule.

Thus it is the nature of the democracy that matters - which you refuse out of hand. Because you are blind to the notion that gerrymandering and the Electoral College are Fallacies of Democratic Fairness.

For your edification: The adulterated gerrymandered vote in the US today: The Congressional Map Has A Record-Setting Bias Against Democrats - excerpt:

MY POINT?
*Enough is enough. It's time we rid the nation of gerrymandering and the Electoral College must be obliged to report ONLY THE UNADULTERATED RESULT OF THE POPULAR VOTE.
*And if that had been done earlier, Hillary Clinton would be today America's first Woman PotUS ...

 

You are correct! <sarcasm>

Because from the get-go the political electoral system was inherently wrong. But, you seem not understand why. (With the nonsense, "It's always been that way so why change it?")

From the very beginning (and both of the following incidents occured in the same year 1812), the nature of American democracy has been a fallacy. Because of the Electoral College (produced in the 12th Amendment that year) and Gerrymandering (which began in Massachusetts in the same year)!

Gerrymandering caught on almost immediately in the rest of nation as first one party and then all dominant parties (inevitably and because of Gerrymandering there became only two) manipulated the concoction of the popular-vote.

Why? Because it assured their dominance of political power.

The patient has been sick ever since. Not just five times with the presidency. But sick, sick, sick with the popular vote manipulation as regards local and state political-office voting as well.

Wakey, wakey ... !

 

Therefore, I'll ask you again ... If the situation was in reverse, and the large cities were heavily Republican, and Trump had won the popular vote, but Hillary won the EC, and the electoral map looked like this only in reverse, would you still call to eliminate the EC?


Or, would you be defending the EC system as a system that better represents the whole country, not just the large cities?

And what if the big cities were all voting 70% Republican, and the small cities and rural areas were the Democratic areas? Would you really want those big Republican cities voting in all of their state's representatives to the House? If the situation were in reverse, would you want to give up the only Democratic seat in the House you had from Oregon? Would you not decry how unfair that was to the more liberal people who live outside the big Republican-controlled cities?

Back to reality ...

If representatives to the House were elected by a statewide popular vote, CA would lose 14 Republican representatives who represent the more conservative areas of CA. Is that fair to those people living in those areas?

In the state of Illinois, the number is 7. 7 Republican representatives who represent the more conservative areas of Illinois would all be replaced by Democrats if there was no districting. Is that fair to those voters from those areas? All those Democratic candidates would have to do would be to win Chicago, and they would win the whole state. And so, who do you think they would be representing? They'd be representing the voters of Chicago, not a spectrum of Illinois voters from around the state.

I will tell you ...

I don't think we make a better country by disenfranchising millions of citizens of their right to be represented in Washington. I think it is unwise and very unhealthy.

I also wish the 3 Branches of government would act as they were originally intended to act.

- The Judicial branch would be completely non-political.
- The Presidency would be only somewhat political, but it would mostly simply carry out the laws passed by Congress.
- And Congress would fight the political battles. Win, lose, and draw. Get elected, get fired by the people. Debate and decide the issues of war and peace, the budget, the social issues - all of it. The President could have his say, but Congress would decide these issues, not the President, not the Supreme Court (unless Congress passed something that was unconstitutional).

If this was how government in Washington operated - the way it was supposed to operate - we wouldn't care that much about the EC because it wouldn't really matter who the president was. It really wouldn't.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, but the House and Senate both had a strong Republican majority, it would not be Clinton's policies that became law; it would be Republican policies, and vice versa. The point being that, if Congress is doing what it is supposed to do, the President isn't that much of a factor. He or she is really just a figurehead and a voice.

But Congress has given up its role, so we talk about the EC, and changing how we elect presidents and House members. And Congress sits on its hands and does basically nothing unless the President pushes them to do something. Would there ever have been "Obamacare" if there were no Obama? Would there ever have been the "Trump tax cuts" if there were no Trump? No, because Congress is too timid to act on its own. Hell, President Obama waged a war against Libya without ever getting an authorization from Congress! And Congress was fine with that. Let Obama take the responsibility for that. "We sure as hell don't want the responsibility for it."

This is the nature of the present-day Congress. Timid, weak, risk averse, self-serving, an unwilling to do its job.

Meanwhile, we talk about the EC. I'm sure the Congress is glad about that. "It's not our fault. It's the EC's fault."

Yeah, right ...

Seth