Would you support having an American monarch IF it kept the courts separate from politics?

That's what you seem to advocate.

 

You cannot show that it has not.

You say this almost as if you are ignorant of the fact the GOP is not alone here...

Unsupportable, bigoted nonense

No President has ever been elected because he won the popular vote -- thsu, your standard has no meaning...

More unsupportable, bigoted nonsense

 

They won the elections before gerrymandering. You can't gerrymander without winning first. Both sides love gerrymandering when they are in power, and hate it when they aren't. (and both sides gerrymander as much as they can).

 

Only a country that knows it sucks brainwashes kids into thinking its the best. Proudest moment was when I stopped standing for the flag in my class with a teacher whose brother was serving in the middle east wars. She said she wanted us to stand because of her brother and I told her "why because he kills innocent people in an unjust and pointless war?" then threatened to sue her if she kicked me out for not standing and that was that.

Religious, and ethnic minorities should be protected, political minorities should have no say in issues, don't like it then GTHO and stop holding the rest hostage.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Well done.

 

The people in the great state of MD would love for gerrymandering not to exist...the Dem legislature...not so much. Nobody is keeping people from getting to the polls...well maybe some Blank Panthers in PA....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

As far as winning the popular vote....the GOP does...a lot in State Gov races, State Senator and US Senator elections as well as in the Presidential election....well in 30 out of the 50 states...a national popular election has never been how we elected anyone.

 

We already have one.

 

They were not the first to do it but they have perfected the art of gerrymandering I can't wait for MI to kick that practice to the curb and return MI to blue again.

Gore should have won the presidency and Clinton should have won, and the democrats should have won way more seats in the house, and well the senate is just rediculious considering the Democrats got 22M more senate votes then the GOP yet are in the minority.

 

In MD the Gerrymandered legislature has worked for the people like when they overroad the veto on the paid sick leave. If it stopped in all states and federally I would be cool with it completely ending.

 

So it worked because a result you wanted got through? How do you know it worked for the "people" if the people's voice isn't truly being heard because of the still maps? It's the most odd map in the United States for Congressional Districts. It also doesn't just effect the State Legislature, but also US House seats.

 

The majority of American voters wanted neither Gore nor either Clinton - that is, neither Bill nor Hillary - as President.
Why should they have won?

Wow. Its almost as if you don't understand how congressmen and senators are elected.

 

Translation: You're OK with gerrymandering when it suits your agenda.

 

The Poster certainly doesn't understand how Congress is elected, nor the Presidential election.

 

I don't support a Monarchy. But I would support a Parliamentary Democracy.

 

Just how are Presidential elections and US Senate races impacted at all by the bipartisan practice of Gerrymandering?

 

Why? Why would you support a system where the Head of State, such as the Queen of England, picks the Prime Minister instead system where people vote?

 

What’s this ‘we’ business? The War of Independence was fought between opposing groups of British citizens. Don’t you just love Americans’ they claim to win wars they never even took part in.

 

Yes, we (meaning the anti-British Americans) kicked out the British. That's the "we" business. I'm not certain what kind of hair you are trying to split.

 

1. Who would be the monarch? How do we choose?
2. Why so many layers before the judges are chosen? (Monarch->Governor General->Senator->Judges). What benefit does that give the system?
3. What makes appointed Senators more capable of choosing a judge and less likely to be swayed by politics than the current system we have?
4. While this would be great for states like California and New York if would suck for the small states like Wyoming and Alaska. Plus a 1000 member house would be unwieldy at best and non-functioning at worst.
5. So you think the US should become a parliamentary democracy? Then you are just rehashing the past. It is not the first time nor will it be the last time that was suggested. If you think it is better, then please post your reasons why a parliamentary democracy is better than the American style.
6. There will ALWAYS be political bias.

In the end you are going to end up with a dictator that controls the courts, which by virtue of being able stop laws with no "political bias", would be able to control which laws actually get passed.

The problem is that you have a very narrow view of what politics is.

 

Nope the folks fighting for the 13 independent colonies that later formed the United States renounced their British citizenship, and wage war against the Crown...hence the Declaration of Independence.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States..."

 

Gerrymandering is shameful. The maps should make some sort of sense, but they don't ever seem to. It often looks like they gave second graders a map and told them to draw randomly.

I am just to the west of Pompano Beach, but they aren't in my district. Boca Raton, several miles to the north is, though. I have far more in common with the peeps in Pompano then in Boca Raton and the peeps in Boca have even less in common with the peeps further south. (In reality, it's all blue, so my third party vote is beyond meaningless, but the districts should make sense.)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/FL22_115.png

 

Nice phrasing! lol

 

The monarch would be an intellectual from one of the territories that would have no political bias against the states.

It makes sure that only the most qualified and impartial are chosen for the job and that politics can't get in the way.

Because not only would they be under an oath of impartiality, but not having to be responsible to anyone or anything other then the Governor General and constitution makes them free of political bias either out of want or necessity

1000 is not that many, Califonia would have 120 seats and Wyoming would have 2. Having an even number like 1000 allows for easy proportional voting

A few reasons 1. The parliament elects the executive thus if they go rouge they can remove them with a simple majority vote. 2. Legislation gets passed easier and agenda's are more clear for voters. 3. No back and forth procedural nonsense.

If the rules set forth by the parliament do not effect you (they are under a separate charter) then you will not care either way. Its only when you have to live under the same rules that are made that you become biased.

Its not a dictator, The Govenor General, and Senate can be expelled and jailed for breaking the oath to impartiality and the monarchy is really just a non partisan figure head.

 

Nope.
If the majority wants your property, yo owe it to them