The Inside Story of Michigan’s Fake Voter Fraud Scandal

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

Amen brother. I'd be a big fan of congress denying a seat to reps from gerrymandered districts, and/or requiring contiguous political districts to be drawn. The former would be hard to enforce, but the latter could be legislated in a day.

After growing up in one of the most gerrymandered districts in NC I detest them with a passion. The problem is that both sides do it and then blame the other side for doing and it is frustrating to say the least. We will more than likely get a new Congressional district next year and I am really can't wait to see how the districts are drawn up. Unfortuantely where I live it got redrawn last year to make it a  D+8 and the Republican got blown out by a Pelosi wannabe Democrat. FYI, I didn't say that but one of the Progressives in the race said it about her during the primary. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Amen brother. I'd be a big fan of congress denying a seat to reps from gerrymandered districts, and/or requiring contiguous political districts to be drawn. The former would be hard to enforce, but the latter could be legislated in a day.

How would this work?

"requiring contiguous political districts to be drawn"

[moxy 1,051]

5 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

How would this work?

"requiring contiguous political districts to be drawn"

Before 1929 (I think), districts were required to have contiguous borders, meaning that you couldn’t wind a district around to get to the populations you wanted. They also had to be compact (no weird shapes, again to keep from trying to pull in a specific population), and have roughly the same populations in each. All those requirements were dropped in 1929, and gerrymandering has been a problem ever since. (I could be off by a few years, but 1929 sticks in my head)

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Before 1929 (I think), districts were required to have contiguous borders, meaning that you couldn’t wind a district around to get to the populations you wanted. They also had to be compact (no weird shapes, again to keep from trying to pull in a specific population), and have roughly the same populations in each. All those requirements were dropped in 1929, and gerrymandering has been a problem ever since. (I could be off by a few years, but 1929 sticks in my head)

I learned something, thanks.

[Dashinka 24,781]

9 hours ago, moxy said:

I'd rather not say what state.

 

Your objection to the electoral vote is a common objection, but the thing is that people should vote, not states. Your argument could be sliced down to "the people across the street have two votes, but I'm a single parent and I only have one vote, and that's not fair." People (should) vote, not states. If New York City has more people than Topeka, KS, then so be it. I don't think someone from Topeka should have a weighted vote just because of geography. And bonus: candidates wouldn't concentrate on just a handful of states anymore. They'd have to appeal to a much broader populace.

 

btw, it used to be state legislatures that voted, not individuals. And state legislatures could take that right back if they wanted to. Amending the constitution to take voting rights out of the hands of the state legislatures and back into the hands of the citizenry is simply more democratic.

Fixed.

Wasn't this country formed by the various States agreeing to it?  What is good for CA, or NY, may not be good for LA or TX, but sure, majority rule or pure democracies always work out.  Another salient question is if the electoral college is abandoned either through the stupid Interstate Compact idea or through other means, why would we keep the Senate?

[Dashinka 24,781]

9 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I really hate the idea of "safe states" or "safe districts" all together. I hate gerrymandering to my core no matter who is doing it. I have always said that we need to draw districts to make them as competitive as possible because it will help keep the politician accountable to the people of the district

I completely agree, district lines should not be drawn to protect any political party, or demographic.

[Dashinka 24,781]

7 hours ago, moxy said:

Before 1929 (I think), districts were required to have contiguous borders, meaning that you couldn’t wind a district around to get to the populations you wanted. They also had to be compact (no weird shapes, again to keep from trying to pull in a specific population), and have roughly the same populations in each. All those requirements were dropped in 1929, and gerrymandering has been a problem ever since. (I could be off by a few years, but 1929 sticks in my head)

The Voting Rights Act also plays a role in redistricting and oddly shaped districts.

[Bettie Page 118]

15 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I understand and see both sides of this argument tbh with you. But after living in CA and seeing how that state is ran I want no part of it at all. I certainly don't want some person from the Bay or LA area determining what is good for the country. Which unfortunately that is what is happening and I freaking hate it. 

Yes, we can't have people running the *shudder* 7th largest economy in the world making decisions

[laylalex 7,300]

1 hour ago, Bettie Page said:

Yes, we can't have people running the *shudder* 7th largest economy in the world making decisions

Did it drop from 5th?

 

I don't necessarily want people from a rural state that doesn't have a diversified economy or demographics determining what is good for the country, but I've been living with that for forever, as far as I can tell. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

It's officially voter fraud if Steve Yzerman voted in the US after the 2002 Winter Olympics. 

[Dashinka 24,781]

2 hours ago, Bettie Page said:

Yes, we can't have people running the *shudder* 7th largest economy in the world making decisions

Considering how they are running it today, I would agree.

57 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Did it drop from 5th?

 

I don't necessarily want people from a rural state that doesn't have a diversified economy or demographics determining what is good for the country, but I've been living with that for forever, as far as I can tell. 

So you are in favor of tyranny of the majority?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

37 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Considering how they are running it today, I would agree.

So you are in favor of tyranny of the majority?

  
    What English to Hyperbole translator software are you using? It’s quite impressive.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, Bettie Page said:

Yes, we can't have people running the *shudder* 7th largest economy in the world making decisions

Well considering how I have seen how crappy it is run. I don't want them running the country the way they are running CA. CA only works because of Silicon Valley and how much taxes they pay into the state coffers. We shall see next year when they figure out that many people that could work remote are moving out of state and paying less to live 

[Dashinka 24,781]

29 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  
    What English to Hyperbole translator software are you using? It’s quite impressive.

So you don't believe that the tyranny of the masses is an inherent issue with majority rule? 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Well considering how I have seen how crappy it is run. I don't want them running the country the way they are running CA. CA only works because of Silicon Valley and how much taxes they pay into the state coffers. We shall see next year when they figure out that many people that could work remote are moving out of state and paying less to live 

It's so funny, whenever I talk to people in Canada and they find out I'm from CA, they always ask "why'd you come here".. it's a running gag. They think California is awesome (generally, because of the weather, which admittedly is the one thing that I miss, family is doing fine and has more than enough money to visit whenever), until they find out how bad it is. Good weather can't overcome the misery spread by wretched politics. While I had easily convertible assets I ditched before leaving CA, I feel bad for family who own a lot of businesses and property there, they're frustrated and seemingly despondent about how off the rails the state has gotten. Also have a buddy who's career is with the state (and so has a lot in CalPERS), he wants to leave, said he'd leave when he sold his house, but still isn't.. he's lived there his whole life.. can sense a bit of smugness that I had for so many years. I try and avoid the grass is greener mentality but in this case its true.