yes really. and all the wishful thinking to the contrary won't change the fact;Jay wrote:
Gerrymandering is why the House is Republican? Not really.
It goes back and forth with every census. Both parties do it you schmuck.Macbeth wrote:
One party steals a branch of government and Jay is happy. Such a free thinker.
Last edited by Jay (2013-01-23 15:11:27)
Please inform me on the "will of the majority of Americans." You'll find public opinion is quite fickle on MANY topics. That is one reason why we have two chambers of Congress, set-up in different ways, with different powers. That way, a simple passing fad is tougher to force down the minority's throats. Now, if you get widespread consensus, you can do pretty much anything you want. Heck, you could repeal the 1st Amendment if you could convince enough people. Our system of government sets the bar high for major changes. That, IMO, is a good thing, generally speaking.Macbeth wrote:
You keep bringing up California like I care about it. I can rattle off one party republican states like Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama etc. all day long but it is not the point I am trying to make. I am upset that the will of the majority of Americans and their desire to have a functional federal government is being undermined by a fetish for 18th century legal documents.
Last edited by BVC (2013-01-23 16:15:39)
recent report by the Republican State Leadership Committee emphasizes that the GOP kept the House because it gerrymandered Congressional districts after the party won so many 2010 victories in state legislatures. Pointing out the "one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans," the Republican State Leadership Committee report states that without the gerrymandering, 2012 could've been a repeat of 2008 when voters gave Democrats the White House and both chambers of Congress. "Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade," the report states.Jay wrote:
Gerrymandering is why the House is Republican?
umm umm ummm this is like the first time in 130 odd years that in the alabama state legislature it wasn't democrat controlMacbeth wrote:
You keep bringing up California like I care about it. I can rattle off one party republican states like Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama etc. all day long but it is not the point I am trying to make. I am upset that the will of the majority of Americans and their desire to have a functional federal government is being undermined by a fetish for 18th century legal documents.
I voted for Christie and plan to vote for him again. I would even consider him for president. But shouldn't money from people on the opposite side of the country stay out of state elections? State sovereignty and all. It would be like Chinese billionaires giving money to presidential candidates. It is wrong for people not living in some place to effect local elections like this. It shouldn't be legal.Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will host a fundraiser for New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie's re-election bid, a Christie finance source confirmed Thursday.
The event will take place February 13 at the young billionaire's home in Palo Alto, California.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-24 11:00:38)
It is odd that someone who's not a resident of the state sponsoring a governor... Same as money from foreign countries donating to any political campaign in the US. Ziques issue is true: it's more about large lobbyist and MNC's that are trying to influence politics.Macbeth wrote:
Yes and it is wrong and people don't care. Give it a few hours and either Jay or Cyborg will come in and defend the practice.
which is, of course, totally untraceable.Jay wrote:
I don't see how you would be able to enforce something like that though, money would just be funneled through shell people/companies
Redistricting already made sure the Republicans kept control of one part of congress even though they lost the election by 1,000,000 votes. This is literally stealing elections. Where are our gun people to protect us from the tyranny of election fraud?Republicans in Virginia and a handful of other battleground states are pushing for far-reaching changes to the electoral college in an attempt to counter recent success by Democrats.
In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district, a setup far more favorable to Republicans. Under such a system in Virginia, for instance, President Obama would have claimed four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in the 2012 election, rather than all of them.
Other states considering similar changes include Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which share a common dynamic with Virginia: They went for Obama in the past two elections but are controlled by Republicans at the state level.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus recently voiced support for the effort, saying it is something that “a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at.”
Sean Spicer, a Priebus spokesman, said Thursday: “For these states, it would make them more competitive, but it’s not our call to tell them how to apportion their votes.”
No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the plan as soon as next week.
If successful, Virginia would become the third state to adopt the congressional district system, after Nebraska and Maine.
The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr. (R-Grayson County), said he wants to give smaller communities a bigger voice. “The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them,” he said.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-01-28 12:34:21)
Last edited by DrunkFace (2013-01-30 15:52:20)