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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    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.

    Do you honestly think that Democrats are not doing the same thing in Blue states?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


      Do you honestly think that Democrats are not doing the same thing in Blue states?
      I have never accused the dems of believing in democratic principles. They clearly, with their super delegate ant democratic scheme, are no better than the GOP.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


        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.

        I'm making the argument that regardless of what party does it gerrymandering is undemocratic. I think Tip O'Neil was wrong. Maybe it used to be local, and perhaps with state elections it is, but with congressional seats if a candidate gets party backing they get access to contributions from key industries. Then they get into office and vote for things their local constituents don't want (bailouts, farm subsidies, tax loopholes, etc...)

        In my home state of Massachusetts the Democratic party has an iron grip on the statehouse. I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that there are many states with virtual one party rule as well. I'm somewhat lacking in my knowledge of state level elections, but I get the feeling that that the DNC and the RNC have a fair amount of influence and there is a good mix of business interests and ideological party interests represented but not much of the voters' interests. That's why it can cost tens of thousands to get a new business license or why a crack in the sidewalk suddenly becomes one tiny restaurant's problem. In the last 2012 election in MA I was glad to see a whole slew of proposals ranging from taxes to beer licenses to marijuana legalization get put the voters. Imagine if the wall street bailout was put to the voters?!

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        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.
        I believe it's state legislatures that draw most congressional districts. It's not necessarily one's own voters that are being kept or discarded, but the ones most likely to vote Democrat or Republican. OMD is probably right that both parties have done it, but from my research if districts were drawn correctly then Dems would pick up at least 8 more seats, probably even more. Take North Carolina, where Dems won 44.24% of the popular vote but just 3 heavily gerrymandered districts. Imagine if the North Carolina districts looked like this: NC Redistricted.png



        I see the Dems picking up the 9th, 12th, 6th, 4th, 13th, and the 1st, or 3 more seats than they actually won. Just a thought, you could redistrict in any number of ways, that was just an example of my playing around with county lines.

        I like your points on the issues the GOP and the MSM use to distract voters. Everyone always says the MSM is liberally biased, and maybe that's just because the more educated one gets the more likely they are to vote Democrat, but look at Fox News and look at the coverage Trump is getting on CNN and MSNBC. Even Jon Stewart was pretty fair to Trump. I was really glad when I heard about his comment right after he said he could shoot someone. He said if elected he would tone it down. Like the Berlin Wall falling to my ears. If he starts with more of that I'd have to think about my vote if it's not vs Sanders. Trump calls for increased taxes, increased tariffs, renegotiated trade deals, repealing and REPLACING Obamacare, he previously spoke of student loan forgiveness and he hasn't mentioned gay marriage once. I honestly believe now that he's using the immigration and terrorism issue to get the GOP nomination, and he's doing a damn fine job too.

        I too think it's odd how raising taxes and providing social services is suddenly equated with state ownership of property. The whole thing that brought down the various Communist experiments was one party rule and the extreme corruption it created. Their countries became a horse race for who knew whom and how much in kickbacks they could be promised. I traveled to China recently and know a lot of Chinese and Vietnamese people and they all say the same thing, you don't get work because of how skilled you are, you just have to know somebody. In China it was obvious, there were these beautiful gated communities that looked quite modern and people driving around in nice cars, and then there were miles upon miles of slums. I'll give China credit though, I was shocked at the lack of homeless people that you see in places like New York or LA.

        Compare this to the US, where it is fast becoming an apartheid style country in regards to Red States and Blue States, each controlled by their respective political parties. Red States vote for pie in the sky weapons systems made in their states that we simply do not need, then cut troop levels and blame the President. Democrats likewise vote for mandated medical insurance that drives up prices even more. Both parties vote for these loopholes that allow the super rich to hide money overseas and buy luxury yachts with tax payer money. And the result is, it's not how smart you are but who your political party is in bed with that dictates how much money you're likely to earn. This type of economic system doesn't last long though. In the US it's lasted what, 20-30 years now.

        The political situation started getting bad in 1964-5 I think when Gulf of Tonkin was used to justify the Vietnam War and the overthrow of democratically elected left leaning regimes and support for repressive military dictatorships went from a twice a decade activity to full time sustained effort in multiple countries (Vietnam, Brazil, the Congo, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Egypt, Columbia, El Salvador, Iraq, Honduras, let me know if I missed any.) But that was when there were no real alternatives and the country was not as much divided geographically but politically. JFK won with 303 points but only .17% more of the popular vote. Johnson won handily, although who knows how much of that was sympathy for JFK. Then Nixon won with 301 and .7% more of the popular vote. Then Nixon won again with every state except for Massachusetts supporting him. Woot. I'd say Carter started the whole geographical political divide. The Republicans gained control of the Senate a few years later. Along with solid victories by Reagan, then Bush Sr. Then Clinton really cemented the geographical divide, and shortly after the Republicans gain control of the House for the first time in forever, and the rest is history. As much as I respect Reagan, economical policy-wise I'd say the US lost it's way sometime between 1981 and 1986. Reaganomics and Clintonomics was one thing. Liberals are still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to spur the economy.

        I have friends who think the last chance for American greatness in the 21st century is if Bernie Sanders wins. And that if Trump wins they're moving to Canada. Bernie's age is starting to worry me a bit, but I'll still trust him with the reins of power. Hillary will be more of the same. Trump would have such a hard time digging himself out of the hole he's dug I think he'd do just as much harm as good. And such is life in the American Empire. I use the term broadly, like the Roman Empire. The US still has elections, but they are largely decided by millionaires and billionaires, and the US has around 5 million citizens ineligible to vote and military bases all around the globe, some in places the locals don't want them, hence the term, American Empire.

        Gerrymandering is just one symptom of the decline of American democratic principals.

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        I have never accused the dems of believing in democratic principles. They clearly, with their super delegate ant democratic scheme, are no better than the GOP.
        I completely agree regarding the super delegate scheme. Democrats award 712 super delegates, and I found competing numbers for the number of actual delegates. According to the election schedule it's 4801, according to google and wikipedia it's 4763. Super delegates are made up of 193 out of 201 members of Congress leaving 8 of them out. The list also includes former State Treasurers like Steve Grossman, members of the State House of Representatives like Joseph McNamara, and party leaders like Howard Dean. I'm surprised they don't just give Bill Maher a title.

        Then there are super delegates like Alan Grayson saying he'll allocate his vote based on internet polling. Can't wait to see how that turns out.
        http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/gray...f_online_poll/

        The Republicans have unpledged delegates too, but it seems like they have far fewer. To be fair, most countries appoint either Prime Ministers or Members Parliament based on popular vote given to the party. In countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, and Israel MP's you vote for a party and the party then allocates the representatives. In France, the UK, and Canada the lower house is elected by simple majority like in the US, and the upper house is elected by local politicians or in the UK by, I don't know even what method the House of Lords is, more like the lord of the flies.

        Australia allows STV voting in both houses, along with Ireland in their lower house these are the only countries which allow this method in national elections. In this system you can vote for a) Bernie Sanders, then b) Rand Paul, then c) Deez Nuts. If Bernie doesn't get a majority, the vote goes to Rand Paul, if Rand Paul doesn't it goes to Deez Nuts. If none get a majority the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated from the count and if someone voted for that person as number 1 their votes get transferred to that person's number 2, and the process continues. This system tends to benefit outsiders and third party candidates. Hence the reason there are around 4-5 active political parties in Australia. Voting is also mandatory in Australia, although the fine for not voting is less than a speeding ticket and you can vote early, by mail, interstate, and if you're in a nursing home or otherwise the vote then comes to you. You can also vote "above the line" meaning for just a political party and the party then gets to decide how those above the line votes are allocated. Aussie's also have a tendency to vote their Prime Ministers out after just a couple of years.

        If anyone else feels I do way too much research for my posts on this site please let me know...
        Last edited by .3dontVoteParty; 02-22-2016, 03:50 AM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post


          I'm making the argument that regardless of what party does it gerrymandering is undemocratic. I think Tip O'Neil was wrong. Maybe it used to be local, and perhaps with state elections it is, but with congressional seats if a candidate gets party backing they get access to contributions from key industries. Then they get into office and vote for things their local constituents don't want (bailouts, farm subsidies, tax loopholes, etc...)

          In my home state of Massachusetts the Democratic party has an iron grip on the statehouse. I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that there are many states with virtual one party rule as well. I'm somewhat lacking in my knowledge of state level elections, but I get the feeling that that the DNC and the RNC have a fair amount of influence and there is a good mix of business interests and ideological party interests represented but not much of the voters' interests. That's why it can cost tens of thousands to get a new business license or why a crack in the sidewalk suddenly becomes one tiny restaurant's problem. In the last 2012 election in MA I was glad to see a whole slew of proposals ranging from taxes to beer licenses to marijuana legalization get put the voters. Imagine if the wall street bailout was put to the voters?!



          I believe it's state legislatures that draw most congressional districts. It's not necessarily one's own voters that are being kept or discarded, but the ones most likely to vote Democrat or Republican. OMD is probably right that both parties have done it, but from my research if districts were drawn correctly then Dems would pick up at least 8 more seats, probably even more. Take North Carolina, where Dems won 44.24% of the popular vote but just 3 heavily gerrymandered districts. Imagine if the North Carolina districts looked like this: [ATTACH=CONFIG]n521404[/ATTACH]



          I see the Dems picking up the 9th, 12th, 6th, 4th, 13th, and the 1st, or 3 more seats than they actually won. Just a thought, you could redistrict in any number of ways, that was just an example of my playing around with county lines.

          I like your points on the issues the GOP and the MSM use to distract voters. Everyone always says the MSM is liberally biased, and maybe that's just because the more educated one gets the more likely they are to vote Democrat, but look at Fox News and look at the coverage Trump is getting on CNN and MSNBC. Even Jon Stewart was pretty fair to Trump. I was really glad when I heard about his comment right after he said he could shoot someone. He said if elected he would tone it down. Like the Berlin Wall falling to my ears. If he starts with more of that I'd have to think about my vote if it's not vs Sanders. Trump calls for increased taxes, increased tariffs, renegotiated trade deals, repealing and REPLACING Obamacare, he previously spoke of student loan forgiveness and he hasn't mentioned gay marriage once. I honestly believe now that he's using the immigration and terrorism issue to get the GOP nomination, and he's doing a damn fine job too.

          I too think it's odd how raising taxes and providing social services is suddenly equated with state ownership of property. The whole thing that brought down the various Communist experiments was one party rule and the extreme corruption it created. Their countries became a horse race for who knew whom and how much in kickbacks they could be promised. I traveled to China recently and know a lot of Chinese and Vietnamese people and they all say the same thing, you don't get work because of how skilled you are, you just have to know somebody. In China it was obvious, there were these beautiful gated communities that looked quite modern and people driving around in nice cars, and then there were miles upon miles of slums. I'll give China credit though, I was shocked at the lack of homeless people that you see in places like New York or LA.

          Compare this to the US, where it is fast becoming an apartheid style country in regards to Red States and Blue States, each controlled by their respective political parties. Red States vote for pie in the sky weapons systems made in their states that we simply do not need, then cut troop levels and blame the President. Democrats likewise vote for mandated medical insurance that drives up prices even more. Both parties vote for these loopholes that allow the super rich to hide money overseas and buy luxury yachts with tax payer money. And the result is, it's not how smart you are but who your political party is in bed with that dictates how much money you're likely to earn. This type of economic system doesn't last long though. In the US it's lasted what, 20-30 years now.

          The political situation started getting bad in 1964-5 I think when Gulf of Tonkin was used to justify the Vietnam War and the overthrow of democratically elected left leaning regimes and support for repressive military dictatorships went from a twice a decade activity to full time sustained effort in multiple countries (Vietnam, Brazil, the Congo, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Egypt, Columbia, El Salvador, Iraq, Honduras, let me know if I missed any.) But that was when there were no real alternatives and the country was not as much divided geographically but politically. JFK won with 303 points but only .17% more of the popular vote. Johnson won handily, although who knows how much of that was sympathy for JFK. Then Nixon won with 301 and .7% more of the popular vote. Then Nixon won again with every state except for Massachusetts supporting him. Woot. I'd say Carter started the whole geographical political divide. The Republicans gained control of the Senate a few years later. Along with solid victories by Reagan, then Bush Sr. Then Clinton really cemented the geographical divide, and shortly after the Republicans gain control of the House for the first time in forever, and the rest is history. As much as I respect Reagan, economical policy-wise I'd say the US lost it's way sometime between 1981 and 1986. Reaganomics and Clintonomics was one thing. Liberals are still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to spur the economy.

          I have friends who think the last chance for American greatness in the 21st century is if Bernie Sanders wins. And that if Trump wins they're moving to Canada. Bernie's age is starting to worry me a bit, but I'll still trust him with the reins of power. Hillary will be more of the same. Trump would have such a hard time digging himself out of the hole he's dug I think he'd do just as much harm as good. And such is life in the American Empire. I use the term broadly, like the Roman Empire. The US still has elections, but they are largely decided by millionaires and billionaires, and the US has around 5 million citizens ineligible to vote and military bases all around the globe, some in places the locals don't want them, hence the term, American Empire.

          Gerrymandering is just one symptom of the decline of American democratic principals.



          I completely agree regarding the super delegate scheme. Democrats award 712 super delegates, and I found competing numbers for the number of actual delegates. According to the election schedule it's 4801, according to google and wikipedia it's 4763. Super delegates are made up of 193 out of 201 members of Congress leaving 8 of them out. The list also includes former State Treasurers like Steve Grossman, members of the State House of Representatives like Joseph McNamara, and party leaders like Howard Dean. I'm surprised they don't just give Bill Maher a title.

          Then there are super delegates like Alan Grayson saying he'll allocate his vote based on internet polling. Can't wait to see how that turns out.
          http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/gray...f_online_poll/

          The Republicans have unpledged delegates too, but it seems like they have far fewer. To be fair, most countries appoint either Prime Ministers or Members Parliament based on popular vote given to the party. In countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, and Israel MP's you vote for a party and the party then allocates the representatives. In France, the UK, and Canada the lower house is elected by simple majority like in the US, and the upper house is elected by local politicians or in the UK by, I don't know even what method the House of Lords is, more like the lord of the flies.

          Australia allows STV voting in both houses, along with Ireland in their lower house these are the only countries which allow this method in national elections. In this system you can vote for a) Bernie Sanders, then b) Rand Paul, then c) Deez Nuts. If Bernie doesn't get a majority, the vote goes to Rand Paul, if Rand Paul doesn't it goes to Deez Nuts. If none get a majority the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated from the count and if someone voted for that person as number 1 their votes get transferred to that person's number 2, and the process continues. This system tends to benefit outsiders and third party candidates. Hence the reason there are around 4-5 active political parties in Australia. Voting is also mandatory in Australia, although the fine for not voting is less than a speeding ticket and you can vote early, by mail, interstate, and if you're in a nursing home or otherwise the vote then comes to you. You can also vote "above the line" meaning for just a political party and the party then gets to decide how those above the line votes are allocated. Aussie's also have a tendency to vote their Prime Ministers out after just a couple of years.

          If anyone else feels I do way too much research for my posts on this site please let me know...

          If you look at a Red/Blue pic of the U.S. you will find vast areas of red with small pockets of blue, mostly highly populated urban areas. Those urban areas have vastly different wants and needs than the rest of the country. Public transportation where I live would be just a joke. Not so in New York City. Should I pay higher taxes to make it cheaper for someone in New York City to ride a subway? Are they willing to put gas in my tank so I can get to the store? I have a septic tank on my property. I pay to maintain it. Should I also have to pay for the sewer system in New York City or St. Louis? Some gerrymandering is done to consolidate minority populations so they will have enough votes to elect a representative of their own race. It is not all bad. I grew up in upstate New York. The people there wish New York City would fall into the ocean because they have undue influence over what goes on in the rest of the state.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


            If you look at a Red/Blue pic of the U.S. you will find vast areas of red with small pockets of blue, mostly highly populated urban areas. Those urban areas have vastly different wants and needs than the rest of the country. Public transportation where I live would be just a joke. Not so in New York City. Should I pay higher taxes to make it cheaper for someone in New York City to ride a subway? Are they willing to put gas in my tank so I can get to the store? I have a septic tank on my property. I pay to maintain it. Should I also have to pay for the sewer system in New York City or St. Louis? Some gerrymandering is done to consolidate minority populations so they will have enough votes to elect a representative of their own race. It is not all bad. I grew up in upstate New York. The people there wish New York City would fall into the ocean because they have undue influence over what goes on in the rest of the state.

            I don't believe I mentioned public transportation in my previous post here. You're correct that public transportation doesn't make sense in rural areas. It also hardly exists in the sprawling metro areas of California, Texas, and elsewhere. Urban areas in the Northeast are very different from urban areas in the south, midwest, and west. That's part of what makes America so great. So no, the south shouldn't have to pay for public transportation in any other region nor does it. Public transport is run by local government.

            There is one instance of gerrymandering being done to consolidate minority populations, that is in North Carolina, as a result of a Supreme Court decision with all 4 conservative justices agreeing, and 4 liberal justices dissenting. In Houston, Boston, Chicago, Louisiana, and elsewhere the gerrymandering seems to be done to specifically to divide black communities. If you have any specific examples, besides North Carolina, where gerrymandering was done at the request of, or for the benefit of communities I'd like to hear about it.

            I know people from upstate New York. Woodstock country. Lot's of people in the north would like Mississippi and Alabama to fall into the gulf too. Bottom line: America is a Republic, we all have to live with each other. What if states were designed like gerrymandered districts? What if Illinois got to snake it's borders out into Indiana, California out into Arizona, or Washington state out into Idaho?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post


              I don't believe I mentioned public transportation in my previous post here. You're correct that public transportation doesn't make sense in rural areas. It also hardly exists in the sprawling metro areas of California, Texas, and elsewhere. Urban areas in the Northeast are very different from urban areas in the south, midwest, and west. That's part of what makes America so great. So no, the south shouldn't have to pay for public transportation in any other region nor does it. Public transport is run by local government.
              Operating costs account for about two-thirds of all costs for public transportation and capital expenditures for about one-third. Fares and other operating revenues cover only one-quarter of the total cost, with the remainder provided by federal, state, and local governments. The federal government supports less than 10% of operating expenditures, but more than 40% of capital expenditures (Table 1).
              http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42706.pdf

              Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
              There is one instance of gerrymandering being done to consolidate minority populations, that is in North Carolina, as a result of a Supreme Court decision with all 4 conservative justices agreeing, and 4 liberal justices dissenting. In Houston, Boston, Chicago, Louisiana, and elsewhere the gerrymandering seems to be done to specifically to divide black communities. If you have any specific examples, besides North Carolina, where gerrymandering was done at the request of, or for the benefit of communities I'd like to hear about it.
              Today, blacks compose about 12% of the U.S. population and 11% of U.S. Representatives. Doesn't sound like they have been gerrymandered out of representation.

              Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post

              I know people from upstate New York. Woodstock country. Lot's of people in the north would like Mississippi and Alabama to fall into the gulf too. Bottom line: America is a Republic, we all have to live with each other. What if states were designed like gerrymandered districts? What if Illinois got to snake it's borders out into Indiana, California out into Arizona, or Washington state out into Idaho?
              Woodstock is not very far Upstate. What if states had to support themselves independent of kickbacks from the Federal Government? What if cities had to support themselves rather than getting money from the rest of the state? What if the subway system in New York had to pay it's own way just with fares? Today, cities with vast populations can vote themselves benefits from the rest of the state.
              Last edited by OldmanDan; 02-27-2016, 08:08 AM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                I am always amazed that the USA puts a lot of stuff in the hands of the elected politicians who have a vested interest in the outcome of what they do.

                Determining election boundaries and voter ID rules are two examples.

                Both parties have, for good and for bad reasons, played with the electoral process to the point where democratic principles and practices are just a joke in much of the USA.

                In Canada we have truly independent bodies, Elections Canada and the Auditor General, for example that do a lot of this work and are as truly independent as they possibly can be and guard this independence with a passion.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Why are so many Blue states so heavily Gerrymandered when they've had Democrats running the show for so long? It's almost as if they are fine with it too when they have an advantage.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                    Why are so many Blue states so heavily Gerrymandered when they've had Democrats running the show for so long? It's almost as if they are fine with it too when they have an advantage.
                    Looks to me like both sides have done it. Sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for party gains but both are guility.

                    What is wrong with an independent agency to set district boiundries and overall run the elections?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RDK View Post

                      Looks to me like both sides have done it. Sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for party gains but both are guility.

                      What is wrong with an independent agency to set district boiundries and overall run the elections?
                      What people ignore about gerrymandering is that those who do it have to get elected in the first place to be in a position to make changes. Quite often that is done by replacing the other party.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                        What people ignore about gerrymandering is that those who do it have to get elected in the first place to be in a position to make changes. Quite often that is done by replacing the other party.
                        But it is not always the districts that they gerrymender that they get elected in.

                        Can you answer my question?

                        What is wrong with having an independent agenmcy set election boundries and election rules?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by RDK View Post

                          But it is not always the districts that they gerrymender that they get elected in.

                          Can you answer my question?

                          What is wrong with having an independent agenmcy set election boundries and election rules?
                          There is nothing wrong with it. Where are you going to find an independent non-partisan agency to do that?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                            There is nothing wrong with it. Where are you going to find an independent non-partisan agency to do that?
                            It should be pretty easy considering it happens all the time for loads of other things.
                            Just find some experts in electoral law who have no affiliation to the places being changed (you keep saying how big the US is so this should be hard) and bingo, job done.

                            We have loads of non-partisan commissions in the UK and they do all sorts of boring stuff like this so it's hardly beyond the will of man.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                              It should be pretty easy considering it happens all the time for loads of other things.
                              Just find some experts in electoral law who have no affiliation to the places being changed (you keep saying how big the US is so this should be hard) and bingo, job done.

                              We have loads of non-partisan commissions in the UK and they do all sorts of boring stuff like this so it's hardly beyond the will of man.
                              Even our Supreme Court is partisan.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                                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.
                                Actually, buried in your usual scattershot nonsense is a kernel of the problem...though not the solution. The problem is not gerrymandering per say, which dates back to the founding. The problem is that increasingly in recent decades, the primary goal of gerrymandering has shifted from maximizing partisan positioning (designing districts to maximize the number of members of your party that get elected) has shifted to first protection of incumbents (even if that means you are not maximizing the number of seats for your party). The old priority resulted in far more competitive districts in the long term.

                                I have proposed broader electoral reform (a substantial increase in the size of the House of Representatives for smaller districts and tying electoral votes to congressional districts -- eliminating "winner take all" states in presidential elections) which would provide a counterbalancing incentive to shift back to the good old days of gerrymandering where parties would gladly throw any particular office holder under the bus in order to get a better overall partisan advantage.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X