Trigger warning
Comments
-
An actual example of gerrymandering is the 2012 election in the house. Where Republicans ended up with 33 more seats but lost the popular vote by 1.5 million people.BearsWiin said:
We don't have a PR system. Plurality vote systems tend to overweight the winning party. Overweighting the winning party is different than having the losing party gain a majority of seats, which is what gerrymandering allows for.RaceBannon said:
Numbers are numbersBearsWiin said:Surprise surprise, the attribute projecting asshats at Fox want their dumb viewers to think that there's no difference between gerrymandering and competitive redistricting
Fox is shit, Race. You know that, somewhere deep down
Tell me where they are wrong?
The democrats and repubs love to gerrymander. That isn't the issue. The numbers say the proportions are right
Obama and his fundamental change to America can go fuck themselves
Rove says that CA's system is gerrymandered. It is not, and he fucking knows it. He wants people to think that it is, instead of being the nonpartisan commission's product, because he wants people to think that it is no better than existing gerrymandered systems, so people won't want to change them.
Gerrymandering affects representative behavior between elections, in addition to affecting electoral outcomes. Everyone should want an end to gerrymandering if they want better behavior from their representatives. If you'd rather bitch and poont partisan fingers, then your part of the problem instead of the solution. -
@BearsWiin2001400ex said:
An actual example of gerrymandering is the 2012 election in the house. Where Republicans ended up with 33 more seats but lost the popular vote by 1.5 million people.BearsWiin said:
We don't have a PR system. Plurality vote systems tend to overweight the winning party. Overweighting the winning party is different than having the losing party gain a majority of seats, which is what gerrymandering allows for.RaceBannon said:
Numbers are numbersBearsWiin said:Surprise surprise, the attribute projecting asshats at Fox want their dumb viewers to think that there's no difference between gerrymandering and competitive redistricting
Fox is shit, Race. You know that, somewhere deep down
Tell me where they are wrong?
The democrats and repubs love to gerrymander. That isn't the issue. The numbers say the proportions are right
Obama and his fundamental change to America can go fuck themselves
Rove says that CA's system is gerrymandered. It is not, and he fucking knows it. He wants people to think that it is, instead of being the nonpartisan commission's product, because he wants people to think that it is no better than existing gerrymandered systems, so people won't want to change them.
Gerrymandering affects representative behavior between elections, in addition to affecting electoral outcomes. Everyone should want an end to gerrymandering if they want better behavior from their representatives. If you'd rather bitch and poont partisan fingers, then your part of the problem instead of the solution. -
Read his last fucking paragraph, for Christ's sake. He said it.
Everybody does not want that. Some of us who actually fucking understnad the subject want it ended entirely. Be better. -
Like I said he's asking Obama to hold to his own definition
I want it ended entirely too
I'm classy like that
Obama and Holder don't and I'm sure Rove is GOP equivalent -
Obama and Holder are calling for nonpartisan state commissions to handle redistricting. They are advocating for an end to partisan gerrymandering. Rove is clearly not doing that. He's deliberately trying to muddy the waters by making PR arguments, which don't apply in plurality voting systems.
Both sides not equally bad. -
2020 will be interesting when the lines get redrawn again. And states adjusted for population. Towards the end of the 10 year cycle they can get skewed. If Democrats can, I'm sure they'll draw the lines to their advantage.RaceBannon said:Like I said he's asking Obama to hold to his own definition
I want it ended entirely too
I'm classy like that
Obama and Holder don't and I'm sure Rove is GOP equivalent -
They shouldn't.2001400ex said:
2020 will be interesting when the lines get redrawn again. And states adjusted for population. Towards the end of the 10 year cycle they can get skewed. If Democrats can, I'm sure they'll draw the lines to their advantage.RaceBannon said:Like I said he's asking Obama to hold to his own definition
I want it ended entirely too
I'm classy like that
Obama and Holder don't and I'm sure Rove is GOP equivalent
Oh, and shut the fuck up already -
Of course they shouldn't. But politicians will politic. That's the unspoken reason this past election, both sides did everything they could to rile up their base. Although the 2020 election will be even more important as the lines for the house will be redrawn under that house.BearsWiin said:
They shouldn't.2001400ex said:
2020 will be interesting when the lines get redrawn again. And states adjusted for population. Towards the end of the 10 year cycle they can get skewed. If Democrats can, I'm sure they'll draw the lines to their advantage.RaceBannon said:Like I said he's asking Obama to hold to his own definition
I want it ended entirely too
I'm classy like that
Obama and Holder don't and I'm sure Rove is GOP equivalent
Oh, and shut the fuck up already -
Rules provide incentives and constraints for actors in the system. If we want better behavior from our elected officials, we need to change the rules. That's why it's a promising sign that more states are implementing nonpartisan electoral redistricting commissions, like CA's, to redraw districts instead of leaving it to state legislatures.2001400ex said:
Of course they shouldn't. But politicians will politic. That's the unspoken reason this past election, both sides did everything they could to rile up their base. Although the 2020 election will be even more important as the lines for the house will be redrawn under that house.BearsWiin said:
They shouldn't.2001400ex said:
2020 will be interesting when the lines get redrawn again. And states adjusted for population. Towards the end of the 10 year cycle they can get skewed. If Democrats can, I'm sure they'll draw the lines to their advantage.RaceBannon said:Like I said he's asking Obama to hold to his own definition
I want it ended entirely too
I'm classy like that
Obama and Holder don't and I'm sure Rove is GOP equivalent
Oh, and shut the fuck up already
Shut the fuck up already -
Well the behavior of our politicians won't change until the lobbying system and citizens United are changed. Right now they act on the benefit of the large donors, including corporations, rather than on the best interest of the people who actually elected them. At least at the national level. One example of that is the marijuana policy. Another example is the cluster of Obamacare.BearsWiin said:
Rules provide incentives and constraints for actors in the system. If we want better behavior from our elected officials, we need to change the rules. That's why it's a promising sign that more states are implementing nonpartisan electoral redistricting commissions, like CA's, to redraw districts instead of leaving it to state legislatures.2001400ex said:
Of course they shouldn't. But politicians will politic. That's the unspoken reason this past election, both sides did everything they could to rile up their base. Although the 2020 election will be even more important as the lines for the house will be redrawn under that house.BearsWiin said:
They shouldn't.2001400ex said:
2020 will be interesting when the lines get redrawn again. And states adjusted for population. Towards the end of the 10 year cycle they can get skewed. If Democrats can, I'm sure they'll draw the lines to their advantage.RaceBannon said:Like I said he's asking Obama to hold to his own definition
I want it ended entirely too
I'm classy like that
Obama and Holder don't and I'm sure Rove is GOP equivalent
Oh, and shut the fuck up already
Shut the fuck up already -
For fucks sakeBearsWiin said:Obama and Holder are calling for nonpartisan state commissions to handle redistricting. They are advocating for an end to partisan gerrymandering. Rove is clearly not doing that. He's deliberately trying to muddy the waters by making PR arguments, which don't apply in plurality voting systems.
Both sides not equally bad.
-
Michael died the way he lived, miserable. Using the "I think everyone else is dirty so it's okay if I'm dirty too" excuse is no way to go through life
-
We're not going to agree on the altruistic nature of Obama wanting democrats in charge of redistricting to be non partisan and fair
No need for 12 pages to get there
Never said it's ok. -
Oh for fuck sakes. Are you that dumb? 1) The “popular vote” doesn’t matter, ever. And even less when looking at congressional and senate races as an aggreatge. And 2) yes It matters that millions of people in California and New York overwhelming vote democrat in huge numbers. If the people in a low population state voted 100% republican, they still would have millions less votes than 51% of the people in a high population state voting democrat. They fact you think that stat matters shows what a dipfuck you are.2001400ex said:Dems won house by 8.8 million votes. Can't wait to hear Damoans hawt take on how there's more people in California and New York than Idaho and Wyoming.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-smash-watergate-record-house-popular-vote-midterms-n940116 -
I hope Beto is the new speaker. He’s rich, cool and 4-0.2001400ex said:
It doesn't matter who the Democrats choose, your news source will vilify them. And you'll believe it and your ignorance will be bliss.Pitchfork51 said:
Nancy pelosi as speaker is a gift for the gopCirrhosisDawg said:GOP was just obliterated in California. In the most populous state that is by itself the 5th largest economy in the world, the party of trump ends up with 8 house seats out of 53. They don’t even try to compete anymore, even as enclaves of 50+ year old high school educated white nationalists grow ever smaller, and retreat into the backwaters of Riverside county, San Bernardino County, the Central Valley and east contra costa.
They could win on a platform of lower taxes, fiscal reform and debt reduction. Instead they scapegoat Mexicans and thump on their bibles. Why don’t republicans run on an agenda that could win votes in California? So tone deaf. This is why you have Nancy Pelosi as speaker. -
You have a great point on the Senate. And have a point with the electoral college for president where most states the delegates are all or none. But the house is proportioned by population and each district in each state stands on its own. So yes the vote count matters.MikeDamone said:
Oh for fuck sakes. Are you that dumb? 1) The “popular vote” doesn’t matter, ever. And even less when looking at congressional and senate races as an aggreatge. And 2) yes It matters that millions of people in California and New York overwhelming vote democrat in huge numbers. If the people in a low population state voted 100% republican, they still would have millions less votes than 51% of the people in a high population state voting democrat. They fact you think that stat matters shows what a dipfuck you are.2001400ex said:Dems won house by 8.8 million votes. Can't wait to hear Damoans hawt take on how there's more people in California and New York than Idaho and Wyoming.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-smash-watergate-record-house-popular-vote-midterms-n940116
That being said, here is the percentage.... 53.3% to 45.0%. And the count is over 9 million now.
I thought you at one time said I didn't have a basic knowledge of civics.... You should take a class yourself. -
Contradiction in termsBearsWiin said:Obama and Holder are calling for nonpartisan state commissions to handle redistricting. They are advocating for an end to partisan gerrymandering. Rove is clearly not doing that. He's deliberately trying to muddy the waters by making PR arguments, which don't apply in plurality voting systems.
Both sides not equally bad. -
Again, it’s a stat that means nothing, yet you think it’s some kind of fucking major win. Yeah the dems won seats. Yeah, places with larger populations for dem. Drumpf (lol) won the election and lost the popular vote. The electoral system is working as designed. When are you taking the civics class ? Dumb shit.2001400ex said:
You have a great point on the Senate. And have a point with the electoral college for president where most states the delegates are all or none. But the house is proportioned by population and each district in each state stands on its own. So yes the vote count matters.MikeDamone said:
Oh for fuck sakes. Are you that dumb? 1) The “popular vote” doesn’t matter, ever. And even less when looking at congressional and senate races as an aggreatge. And 2) yes It matters that millions of people in California and New York overwhelming vote democrat in huge numbers. If the people in a low population state voted 100% republican, they still would have millions less votes than 51% of the people in a high population state voting democrat. They fact you think that stat matters shows what a dipfuck you are.2001400ex said:Dems won house by 8.8 million votes. Can't wait to hear Damoans hawt take on how there's more people in California and New York than Idaho and Wyoming.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-smash-watergate-record-house-popular-vote-midterms-n940116
That being said, here is the percentage.... 53.3% to 45.0%. And the count is over 9 million now.
I thought you at one time said I didn't have a basic knowledge of civics.... You should take a class yourself. -
No I don't think it's a fucking major win. I say it to trigger conservative dicksuckers such as you. Looks like it worked.MikeDamone said:
Again, it’s a stat that means nothing, yet you think it’s some kind of fucking major win. Yeah the dems won seats. Yeah, places with larger populations for dem. Drumpf (lol) won the election and lost the popular vote. The electoral system is working as designed. When are you taking the civics class ? Dumb shit.2001400ex said:
You have a great point on the Senate. And have a point with the electoral college for president where most states the delegates are all or none. But the house is proportioned by population and each district in each state stands on its own. So yes the vote count matters.MikeDamone said:
Oh for fuck sakes. Are you that dumb? 1) The “popular vote” doesn’t matter, ever. And even less when looking at congressional and senate races as an aggreatge. And 2) yes It matters that millions of people in California and New York overwhelming vote democrat in huge numbers. If the people in a low population state voted 100% republican, they still would have millions less votes than 51% of the people in a high population state voting democrat. They fact you think that stat matters shows what a dipfuck you are.2001400ex said:Dems won house by 8.8 million votes. Can't wait to hear Damoans hawt take on how there's more people in California and New York than Idaho and Wyoming.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-smash-watergate-record-house-popular-vote-midterms-n940116
That being said, here is the percentage.... 53.3% to 45.0%. And the count is over 9 million now.
I thought you at one time said I didn't have a basic knowledge of civics.... You should take a class yourself. -
Worthless oxygen thief heard from.2001400ex said:
No I don't think it's a fucking major win. I say it to trigger conservative dicksuckers such as you. Looks like it worked.MikeDamone said:
Again, it’s a stat that means nothing, yet you think it’s some kind of fucking major win. Yeah the dems won seats. Yeah, places with larger populations for dem. Drumpf (lol) won the election and lost the popular vote. The electoral system is working as designed. When are you taking the civics class ? Dumb shit.2001400ex said:
You have a great point on the Senate. And have a point with the electoral college for president where most states the delegates are all or none. But the house is proportioned by population and each district in each state stands on its own. So yes the vote count matters.MikeDamone said:
Oh for fuck sakes. Are you that dumb? 1) The “popular vote” doesn’t matter, ever. And even less when looking at congressional and senate races as an aggreatge. And 2) yes It matters that millions of people in California and New York overwhelming vote democrat in huge numbers. If the people in a low population state voted 100% republican, they still would have millions less votes than 51% of the people in a high population state voting democrat. They fact you think that stat matters shows what a dipfuck you are.2001400ex said:Dems won house by 8.8 million votes. Can't wait to hear Damoans hawt take on how there's more people in California and New York than Idaho and Wyoming.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-smash-watergate-record-house-popular-vote-midterms-n940116
That being said, here is the percentage.... 53.3% to 45.0%. And the count is over 9 million now.
I thought you at one time said I didn't have a basic knowledge of civics.... You should take a class yourself. -
Only if you lack the vision to free yourself from partisan shackles. People do it all the time, and you can tooGrundleStiltzkin said:
Contradiction in termsBearsWiin said:Obama and Holder are calling for nonpartisan state commissions to handle redistricting. They are advocating for an end to partisan gerrymandering. Rove is clearly not doing that. He's deliberately trying to muddy the waters by making PR arguments, which don't apply in plurality voting systems.
Both sides not equally bad.
