Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Gerrymandering

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gerrymandering

    It occurred to me that Democrats have good odds on the White House if Trump or Cruz wins the nomination. And if Trump runs as a third party forget about it. The Senate seems to always be about 50/50 and looks likely to remain that way in 2016. But the House is a lock for Republicans in my opinion, the question is how solid their majority will be. There are a number of reasons for this. First is the fact that Republicans are more spread out and Democrats are clustered in the cities. But I also think Redistricting, or Gerrymandering districts when Redistricting, also plays a role. Here is the simple graphic which shows the most gerrymandered districts.



    For example:



    It's not unique to Red States, but it tends to be in Red States. According to the source I found, 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts were won by Democrats and 8 of those 10 were designed by Republicans.

    I realize that Representatives are elected to serve their constituencies, but the ratio between what the popular vote is across the country to what the ratio of representation is in Congress is way off. In 2012 for instance, Democrats won the popular vote by 1.4 million but had 33 fewer seats. This can go the other way though, as in 2008 when Democrats won the popular vote by 13 million and had 79 more seats.

    I don't believe this is fair for the average voter. It also makes it more difficult for voters to even know who their representative is. I'm not sure what the solution is, curious if anyone has any thoughts? Maybe just go by county and group counties together if needed? Have a space of 2 or 3 election cycles between when the new district is voted on and when it is implemented?


  • #2
    Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
    It occurred to me that Democrats have good odds on the White House if Trump or Cruz wins the nomination. And if Trump runs as a third party forget about it. The Senate seems to always be about 50/50 and looks likely to remain that way in 2016. But the House is a lock for Republicans in my opinion, the question is how solid their majority will be. There are a number of reasons for this. First is the fact that Republicans are more spread out and Democrats are clustered in the cities. But I also think Redistricting, or Gerrymandering districts when Redistricting, also plays a role. Here is the simple graphic which shows the most gerrymandered districts.



    For example:



    It's not unique to Red States, but it tends to be in Red States. According to the source I found, 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts were won by Democrats and 8 of those 10 were designed by Republicans.

    I realize that Representatives are elected to serve their constituencies, but the ratio between what the popular vote is across the country to what the ratio of representation is in Congress is way off. In 2012 for instance, Democrats won the popular vote by 1.4 million but had 33 fewer seats. This can go the other way though, as in 2008 when Democrats won the popular vote by 13 million and had 79 more seats.

    I don't believe this is fair for the average voter. It also makes it more difficult for voters to even know who their representative is. I'm not sure what the solution is, curious if anyone has any thoughts? Maybe just go by county and group counties together if needed? Have a space of 2 or 3 election cycles between when the new district is voted on and when it is implemented?

    One of the things that people forget when it comes to so called gerrymandering is that those who do the gerrymandering have to be elected in the first place. Often, gerrymandering is done at the behest of a certain minority group who wants to assure the election of someone from their group. If you look at your map, some of the darkest areas are concentrations of minorities.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
      It occurred to me that Democrats have good odds on the White House if Trump or Cruz wins the nomination. And if Trump runs as a third party forget about it. The Senate seems to always be about 50/50 and looks likely to remain that way in 2016. But the House is a lock for Republicans in my opinion, the question is how solid their majority will be. There are a number of reasons for this. First is the fact that Republicans are more spread out and Democrats are clustered in the cities. But I also think Redistricting, or Gerrymandering districts when Redistricting, also plays a role. Here is the simple graphic which shows the most gerrymandered districts.



      For example:



      It's not unique to Red States, but it tends to be in Red States. According to the source I found, 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts were won by Democrats and 8 of those 10 were designed by Republicans.

      I realize that Representatives are elected to serve their constituencies, but the ratio between what the popular vote is across the country to what the ratio of representation is in Congress is way off. In 2012 for instance, Democrats won the popular vote by 1.4 million but had 33 fewer seats. This can go the other way though, as in 2008 when Democrats won the popular vote by 13 million and had 79 more seats.

      I don't believe this is fair for the average voter. It also makes it more difficult for voters to even know who their representative is. I'm not sure what the solution is, curious if anyone has any thoughts? Maybe just go by county and group counties together if needed? Have a space of 2 or 3 election cycles between when the new district is voted on and when it is implemented?
      Wow. Looking at my state, the gerrymandering, it became obvious that the most gerrymandering occurs where the black population is high. So in my state, there is a small area north, which I am in, and a small area south, to the gulf coast, that has little going on. That is because these areas are primarily white. SO, the GOP is gerrymandering my state to work around the blacks deciding which party wins. Imagine that. Alabama works out the same, high gerrymandering in high black population areas. Not a coincidence. No wonder its the GOP that wants voter picture id. It's their MO, to nullify black and Hispanic votes. Pretty damned nefarious, huh?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        ​I was in a bit of a rush when I posted this and just realized I forgot to post my source!
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nal-districts/

        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

        One of the things that people forget when it comes to so called gerrymandering is that those who do the gerrymandering have to be elected in the first place. Often, gerrymandering is done at the behest of a certain minority group who wants to assure the election of someone from their group. If you look at your map, some of the darkest areas are concentrations of minorities.

        33 states leave it up to the legislatures. Other states leave it up to "independent commissions". I'd be interested how many of those districts you mentioned end up having members of their own race representing them. For the example, the 2nd Congressional District seat in Texas has been held by white Republicans for the last 60 years. Also, in my home state of Massachusetts, the area with the heavy black population has been slit in two, one area grouped with the rest of Boston itself, which is highly gentrified, the other area spliced with more blue collar rural areas to the south. Overall blacks make up 12% of the population and 10% of Representatives, which is fair I'd say. Hispanics are 16% of the country and 7% of Representatives.

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        Wow. Looking at my state, the gerrymandering, it became obvious that the most gerrymandering occurs where the black population is high. So in my state, there is a small area north, which I am in, and a small area south, to the gulf coast, that has little going on. That is because these areas are primarily white. SO, the GOP is gerrymandering my state to work around the blacks deciding which party wins. Imagine that. Alabama works out the same, high gerrymandering in high black population areas. Not a coincidence. No wonder its the GOP that wants voter picture id. It's their MO, to nullify black and Hispanic votes. Pretty damned nefarious, huh?
        Interesting, I had not compared these maps to areas with minority populations. Nefarious indeed. I'll keep looking into which of the most Gerrymandered districts for patterns in race and party. I always knew the districts in my home state of Massachusetts were gerrymandered. As I mentioned above, the area with heavy black concentrations was split in two and each watered down with white areas. I guess race is an issue everywhere, even liberal Boston. Although every Representative from Massachusetts is a Democrat anyway. My representative is Joseph P Kennedy III, grandson of Bobby Kennedy. Hence my ultra-liberal stances. That district spans from ultra-liberal Boston suburbs like Cambridge and Newton to blue collar places around Brockton in the south shore 22 miles south skipping over the other two districts. Looks like someone didn't want a Republican representing those areas.

        Which state are you from again BD? Mississippi? Looks like Jacksonville has a bite taken out of it.

        Oldman, I'm curious which state you're from too?

        Am I correct in assuming both of you would be more in favor of a system where districts are based more on geography than ethnic or political make-up?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
          ​I was in a bit of a rush when I posted this and just realized I forgot to post my source!
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nal-districts/




          33 states leave it up to the legislatures. Other states leave it up to "independent commissions". I'd be interested how many of those districts you mentioned end up having members of their own race representing them. For the example, the 2nd Congressional District seat in Texas has been held by white Republicans for the last 60 years. Also, in my home state of Massachusetts, the area with the heavy black population has been slit in two, one area grouped with the rest of Boston itself, which is highly gentrified, the other area spliced with more blue collar rural areas to the south. Overall blacks make up 12% of the population and 10% of Representatives, which is fair I'd say. Hispanics are 16% of the country and 7% of Representatives.



          Interesting, I had not compared these maps to areas with minority populations. Nefarious indeed. I'll keep looking into which of the most Gerrymandered districts for patterns in race and party. I always knew the districts in my home state of Massachusetts were gerrymandered. As I mentioned above, the area with heavy black concentrations was split in two and each watered down with white areas. I guess race is an issue everywhere, even liberal Boston. Although every Representative from Massachusetts is a Democrat anyway. My representative is Joseph P Kennedy III, grandson of Bobby Kennedy. Hence my ultra-liberal stances. That district spans from ultra-liberal Boston suburbs like Cambridge and Newton to blue collar places around Brockton in the south shore 22 miles south skipping over the other two districts. Looks like someone didn't want a Republican representing those areas.

          Which state are you from again BD? Mississippi? Looks like Jacksonville has a bite taken out of it.

          Oldman, I'm curious which state you're from too?

          Am I correct in assuming both of you would be more in favor of a system where districts are based more on geography than ethnic or political make-up?

          I live in Southwest Missouri. It has been my experience from living all around this country that lots of gerrymandering in the South is done so there will be enough minorities within a district to elect a minority candidate. I agree that sometimes districts are created to elect some particular political party and sometimes districts are created to make districts partially city and partially rural.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

            Wow. Looking at my state, the gerrymandering, it became obvious that the most gerrymandering occurs where the black population is high. So in my state, there is a small area north, which I am in, and a small area south, to the gulf coast, that has little going on. That is because these areas are primarily white. SO, the GOP is gerrymandering my state to work around the blacks deciding which party wins. Imagine that. Alabama works out the same, high gerrymandering in high black population areas. Not a coincidence. No wonder its the GOP that wants voter picture id. It's their MO, to nullify black and Hispanic votes. Pretty damned nefarious, huh?


            Of course minorities are gerrymandered into their own districts, but don't try to blame it on the GOP. Compact and neatly drawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act and deny minority voters the ability to elect the candidate of their choice (or so the liberal argument goes).

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              The whole gerrymandering problem is overblown; after all, the Dems helped and increased their own safe districts. The only real effect of gerrymandering is to make it nearly impossible for 3rd party candidates to have a viable chance of winning.

              Here's the real problem for Dems;








              The majority of Dems all live in the same geographical areas, the cities.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Gerrymandering is the simplest thing in the world to fix, you just need recognized permanent boundaries and the ability to count and divide. CYDdharta painted a beautiful picture of the solution...

                Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post


                The majority of Dems all live in the same geographical areas, the cities.
                Counties. Each one gets a representative in their state houses and House of Representatives, with their votes weighted based on population. In their State Senates, each county gets an equal vote, mirroring Congress.

                It would be an effective way to reform the Electoral Collegefor all executive office holders on both the state and national levels. Each elected representative gets a single vote, which by law must be for the winner of the popular vote in their respective jurisdiction.

                Combined with the restoration of a more limited Federal government and Federalist principles, all these measures would carry on the tradition enshrined in the Great Constitutional Compromise the Framers struck, which made it impossible for the larger, more populous states to dictate their values on everyone else. A hundred years of "progressive" policy has eroded that key principal.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post



                  Of course minorities are gerrymandered into their own districts, but don't try to blame it on the GOP. Compact and neatly drawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act and deny minority voters the ability to elect the candidate of their choice (or so the liberal argument goes).
                  Can you show any instance where a liberal made that argument? There was one Supreme Court case, Shaw v. Reno, where that argument was touted, and the majority opinion in that case was 4 conservatives plus 1 liberal vs 4 liberals.



                  Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
                  The whole gerrymandering problem is overblown; after all, the Dems helped and increased their own safe districts. The only real effect of gerrymandering is to make it nearly impossible for 3rd party candidates to have a viable chance of winning.

                  Here's the real problem for Dems;








                  The majority of Dems all live in the same geographical areas, the cities.
                  That doesn't look like a major problem to me... As I'll point out below, there were numerous population centers that voted Democrat in 2014 but didn't receive the corresponding level of representation. There are far more districts gerrymandered to support Republicans than Democrats. On the whole, all gerrymandering seems to be done to make districts safe for the incumbent.

                  And if you think minorities are being fenced in, look at the case of Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. All 4 cities have black neighborhoods sliced and diced and mixed in with communities many miles away. Here is Chicago.

                  Houston.jpg






                  Looks like they sliced and diced the minority community to me.

                  Similarly in Boston, the only city that is divided into two separate congressional districts is the city of Boston straight through the black community. Race clearly played a role, whether it was to divide the black community or not lump them all together I don't know.

                  Elsewhere, like in North Carolina, the black community is lumped together probably because of the Shaw v. Reno Supreme Court case that found that districts must be drawn so that it doesn't take race into consideration. This came about after the state tried to submit a congressional map with just 1 black majority district. The Feds kicked it back and said make it two. That was challenged in court and the court decided race can't play a factor. So instead the state redrew the districts so they had 1 minority district which snaked it's way across the state to include all the blacks. Democracy hard at work. That was a 5-4 decision with 4 conservative justices and 1 liberal justice forming the majority.


                  As for the balance of power... I found something else interesting. The way Congressional seats are awarded benefits Republicans by a wide margin. Although most of the most gerrymandered districts are held by Democrats, I believe that was either done to fence the democrats in or in some cases by democrats themselves to help themselves in the primaries. In almost every case I could find, Congressional elections are won by wide margins. There were hardly any that were within 10 percentage points.

                  This was the 2014 congressional election results




                  And this was the results by county:



                  Please note the numerous pockets of Democratic counties in Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida as compared to the district results.

                  Again this benefits Republicans far more than Democrats, although there were some cases where it benefited Democrats. I'll just run down the list.

                  Michigan probably had the biggest discrepancy. In 2014 Democrats won the popular vote 49.2% to 47.5%. However there were 9 seats awarded to Republicans and 5 to Democrats. Most of the Democrats won with 70-80% of the vote, while Republicans had 3-4 races with just 10 point leads. Just, in Congressional terms anyway. That's 3-4 seats that should have been Democrat there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...sylvania,_2014 (I'm not going to site these each time, this is all public info).

                  In Pennsylvania Democrats had 44.46% to 55.54% for the GOP. However, they won 5 out of 18 Congressional seats, or about 28%. The Dems seem to be out 2-3 seats there.

                  In Ohio Democrats won 40% of the popular vote but just 4 out of 16 congressional seats. They also have Toledo connecting with Cleveland, and Cleveland itself divided into 4 or 5 different districts that snake around in suspicious ways. By the popular vote and by the county vote Democrats should have picked up 2-3 more seats there.

                  In North Carolina, Dems won 44.24% of the popular vote but only 3 out of 13 seats. There's another 3-4 seats for Dems.

                  By the way here is North Carolina's district map


                  1, 4, and 12 were the only ones Democrats won, each with over 70% of the vote. They lost 2 and 13 with 41% and 43% respectively. In the 9th district the Republican ran unopposed. Imagine if Charlotte was involved in that election?

                  In Florida, Dems won 43.98% of the popular vote, but received just 10 of the 27 seats. There's another 1-2 there.

                  Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama all had should have had 1-2 more Democratic seats judging by the popular vote.

                  Then it gets tricky... Overall, across the nation Dems won 44.5% of the popular vote but just 188 seats. So they're about 12 seats short. But I understand in smaller states like Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and elsewhere, that even if Dems get 30-40% of the vote, they shouldn't really be entitled to any seats. There are too few districts to gerrymander in those places, I think that's just how elections go. The same could be said for Massachusetts, where all 9 seats went to Democrats while Republicans won 17.3% of the vote. I believe Massachusetts is the only state in it's population class to be so solidly blue. Woo!

                  Connecticut also awarded all 5 of it's Congressional seats to Dems but again they have too few districts to gerrymander, it's just the luck of the draw.


                  The only Blue states I could find with significant popular vote/seats awarded variances were New York and California.

                  New York had 9 out of 27 seats go to Republicans with 39.5% Republican popular vote. That's maybe 1-2 more for Republicans. But New York also has fully 2/3's of it's population living in New York City. Those districts are gerrymandered, but they don't seem to take minority populations and dilute them, or fence them in, or fence in Republicans, it's kind of just all over the place.

                  California unfortunately I must report owes Republicans around 6 seats. 13 out of 59 seats went Republican, with 39.49% of the vote going Republican. Parts of Los Angeles are indeed gerrymandered. Black communities and Asian communities are used to dilute slightly more rural areas that might vote Republican. Republican strongholds in North San Diego and Camp Pendleton are somewhat fenced in. It's also important to note that California immense size comes into play. All in all if the districts were drawn more geographically centered I think Republicans could pick up an extra 4-6 seats.

                  I was surprised to learn that Texas isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Although they still owe Democrats 1-3 seats. The city of Houston is indeed gerrymandered to mix minority areas in with rural voters as I showed above. But overall the Democrats picked up 11 out of 36 seats with just 33.1% of the vote. Maybe they are due another 1 or 2 if Houston wasn't so gerrymandered, but given the size of Texas that's not too bad. I think it's also important to note that in the last election Texas only had 25% turnout, compared to 42.2% in California. Also Libertarians captured 5.1% of the vote which could have brought Democratic numbers down somewhat. So maybe 1-3 more seats from Texas for Dems.

                  Other blue state strongholds such as Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and New Jersey were each almost exactly spot on. I don't think the GOP could expect any more from those states. In Illinois the ratio was spot on, but Chicago is fairly gerrymandered, so I'll say the GOP could get 1 more out of that state.

                  All in all, going with lower end estimates for Democrats vs high end estimates for Republicans, Democrats should get 3+2+2+3+1+5+2 = 18 more seats. Versus 2+6+1 = 9 for the GOP. Not enough to disrupt the balance of power in the House, but enough to take away the super majority. And this is just for 2014, which was the lowest turnout election in 70 years, or 36.4%. Maybe I should change my name to .6 don't vote. The last presidential election the turnout was 58.2%. In that election the Democrats won the popular vote with 48.8% to the GOP's 47.6%, but the GOP still had a 33 seat majority. I also think the Senate is disproportionately Republican leaning. Although I think it's a grand idea to give smaller states disproportionately more say, I still think it's important for leaders to understand that they may not have as strong of a mandate as they think they do.

                  With the Senate, there are 21 states with populations smaller than Puerto Rico. 12 are solid red states, 4 are swing states, and 5 are solid blue states.

                  The Electoral College is about even, with maybe a slight advantage to the Democrats, but it changes every election year. After the 2020 census Red States will probably gain 6-7 points like they did in 2010 and then the advantage will be theirs. Unless Puerto Rico or D.C. have their way.

                  This year the primaries have driven the Republicans so far to the right I don't think they'll do well in swing states. The Democratic Presidential Candidates usually tack to the center, but this year because it's an insider career lady versus a hemp and flower-power born again hippie they're just all over the place.

                  So, House, biased towards the GOP but even if it weren't they would still currently have a majority. The Senate is also biased towards the GOP, enough to take away their majority, although I personally am not in favor of changing the allotments. The Electoral College is roughly even.

                  Conclusions: The House should not ride so high and mighty and assume they have this great mandate to increase spending while cutting taxes. They have had 6 years now, and over a decade before that, and their economic policies have failed to create jobs, increase wages, and almost caused a repeat of the Great Depression in 2008. I blame some Democrats for the Great Recession, but the whole increasing spending while cutting taxes is squarely a Republican idea.

                  The Senate, should also not presume to be the noble arbiters they may think of themselves as. If it weren't for 12 solid red states with populations smaller than Puerto Rico they would not have a filibuster proof majority. Just one more reason they should hold a vote on Obama's nominee.

                  And for President, there have been 5-6 straight polls in Virginia with Trump and Cruz trailing the other Republican candidates by around 10 points, and in all but one poll they lose to both Democrats, often by more than 10 points. In gamer speak I'd say GG... you're gonna get pwned.


                  Last edited by .3dontVoteParty; 02-18-2016, 05:20 AM.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    You can't gerrymander districts until you win the majority in the state government.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      You can't gerrymander districts until you win the majority in the state government.
                      The purpose of gerrymandering is what? Well, it helps to keep a encumbent in office, a dem or a repub. And it has to be done artificially, which is a move away from a democratic process in electing who represents the people.

                      Anyone who is actually interested in democratic principle, over that of partisan politics, is on my side, that gerrymandering another illustration the corruption of democratic principles. What is important then, is not those principles, but which party gets to return to the legislature, once they win one election. By creating meandering lines for districts, based upon where the preferable voters are, for a particular political party, places its own existence above any democratic principle.

                      Some have said, that if not for gerrymandered districts, the GOP would not hold congress, and keep seats. More so than on the democratic side. If that is true, then it's a corruption driven by a party wanting to achieve more people being elected in that party, and they will use any means to do just that.

                      And beyond this, the two party system, which has stopped representing the people, and only represents those with lots of money to give them, to win an election, has structured the system to keep out a 3rd party, which would be a threat to the system who does not represent the voters, and which americans in this current election cycle are showing that they have finally caught on to the corruption and dirty tricks of two parties who have no intention of ever representing what is best of the American people, economically. Gerrymandering then, keeps in people, who rely upon the past uneducated, but heavily propagandized voter who will vote against their own best self interest, for the propaganda has been so clever and so effective at keeping the FOOLS, fooled.
                      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 02-18-2016, 12:03 PM.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        The Dems gerrymandered states for years and eventually lost a lot of states to Republicans who have been returning the favor. Promote the right agenda, win a few elections, and you get to do the gerrymandering. Just a perk of the majority.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          The Dems gerrymandered states for years and eventually lost a lot of states to Republicans who have been returning the favor. Promote the right agenda, win a few elections, and you get to do the gerrymandering. Just a perk of the majority.

                          It takes away from real Democracy no matter which party does it. And which states did Dems gerrymander that they then lost? Certain states are inherently Red or Blue, so when they win a state legislature, which is easier than winning a majority in Congress, then the party officials can design the districts to keep out the other party in the future. Nothing is more un-Democratic. I don't think that's what the Founders envisioned.

                          And perks of the majority? Would you be saying the same thing if Democrats used their majority to get stuff done? Are those Republican morals then? If it feels good do it?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post


                            It takes away from real Democracy no matter which party does it. And which states did Dems gerrymander that they then lost? Certain states are inherently Red or Blue, so when they win a state legislature, which is easier than winning a majority in Congress, then the party officials can design the districts to keep out the other party in the future. Nothing is more un-Democratic. I don't think that's what the Founders envisioned.

                            And perks of the majority? Would you be saying the same thing if Democrats used their majority to get stuff done? Are those Republican morals then? If it feels good do it?

                            Democrats held Congress for 40 years prior to 1984. That was done to a large extent by gerrymandering. If the Democrats held the Congress today it would be the Republicans complaining. If you want control of your state houses, you have to get enough people from your party elected to take control. Propose policies the people want and get your folks elected. As Tip O'neil used to say, all politics is local.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              The Dems gerrymandered states for years and eventually lost a lot of states to Republicans who have been returning the favor. Promote the right agenda, win a few elections, and you get to do the gerrymandering. Just a perk of the majority.
                              A perk that in principle is anti democratic, and pro "keeping a seat for your tribe, once you win it the first time. ' So what is basically done, in simple terms, is that the geographicall area that contained the voters who put you into office, you keep, and the areas that voted for he other guy or party, you discard, redrawing a district's lines in order to personally benefit the politician and his party have that seat of power. If over time, the demographics change within that gerrymandered, artificially created district, changes and no longer contains the demographics needed, it is Gerry mandered again, to discard original areas, and picking up more favorable areas based upon the vote, turning the boundary lines into something that looks like a drunk salamander wandering about in the mud of political power.

                              I personally think its a mockery of a democratic, constitutional republic, and is hard evidence of how politicians view a democratic republic...which is not very well. And their actions in congress, and the oval office, is hard evidence that these men have no intention of representing the People, which is a mockery of a democratic republic, where citizens choose men to represent their best interests and their common good, in the halls of power, and these elected men refuse to do that, and out in the open, choose to only represent a small group of extraordinarily rich elites, who basically own America, and even act as if they own her people.

                              So it is astounding that we have so many white working people, or retired working people, that would continue to vote for a political cabal, that has not represented them in 40 years, and has no plans of ever representing them, but still vote for them only because they talk like gays and abortion is something they want to kill, , (but it has always been just talk and words are cheap in places like DC) ever after the fact that the USSC made both the law of this land. I think the other reason whites vote for men who will never represent them, is because these GOPhers have lied to the white voters, and told them that if they are not a GOPher, then they are one of those communists that committed great evils when they ruled over a communist state. So, its either God Pleasing, GOPherism, or its the most evil thing on earth, COMMUNISM which turns an entire nation into a one class nation, where everyone is so dirt poor as to suffer from famiines.

                              That white voters were never schooled properly, to understand the different forms of capitalism, as well as understanding factually what socialism and communism entails, the abolishment of the private sector, no one can own a business or land, and the State owning everything from a local burger joint, to a car factory. So when the GOPher elite neoliberals lie to people and tell them that someone like sanders or Obama, wants to turn American into a socialist state, these people are duped by the lie, by the ruse, coming from a group of elites who knows just how disconnected from reality an uneducated or miseducated voter can be. And these elites, these men of the oligarchy, even own the major outlets for information, and so they can keep the people stupid, and ignorant, by creating division between the left and right voter, using emotionally driven issues, like queers, muslims, transgender this or that, illegals, anything that serves as a scapegoat in order to keep the attention away from what MSM will not cover. MSM would not cover the study that evidenced that the people are not being represented by public policy, only the elites get favorable policy, and that our republic was the victim of a quiet coup, that replaced the republic with an oligarchy. So the media is a part of the rigged system, helping to insure it stays in place and creates more income disparity which is at 1928 levels, which preceded the crash of 29 and the great depression.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X