New Pennsylvania Congressional Map Is a Big Win for Democrats

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/119526/rick-saccone#.Wo2I0IWcHIV

 

says the poster who continually cast aspersions on all others.

 

Which is precisely why gerrymandering needs to be handled by impartial, non-partisan boards.

Having the elected select their electorate ensures victory. It's the worst form of bid rigging of all time.

 

Newsflash; NONE OF THEM GIVE A ****. THEY ONLY CARE THAT THEY WON.

 

What exactly is wrong with 90% of the voters having 9 of the representatives and 10% of the voters having 1 representative?

 

The PA Supreme Court does have the power to ensure that the PA district map meets the PA Constitutional requirements.

 

That is the meme isn't it?

 

Instead we have to tolerate the Tyranny of the Minority?

Scrapping the EC would mean that EVERYONE would have an EQUAL vote in choosing the next POTUS irrespective of where they lived.

 

Democrats do that on their own. Washington DC which has no suburb that democrats can crack their city into as is normally done in democratic gerrymandering goes over 90% democrat.

 

Where does the court get the right to take it upon itself a power delegated to another branch.

 

Yep. You end up in a situation where because because a district goes 90% democrat it gets split into two districts with the urban area controlling both districts. That urban area now has 2 representatives instead of the one its entitled to and those who got cracked into the new districts have their voice in congress taken away from them.

 

I didn't say there was. I was pointing out that his argument was specious because districts have to have approximately the same population.

His case isnt' the real life case we are faced with. In reality because of democrats desire to live in ideologically homogeneous communities what we get is more like this.

As I said last year

The desire for proportional representation robs people who live out side of the city of their representation because you ant create republicans where they don't exists. The cities have to be broken into more districts and get more representatives than they are entitled to by population.

 

Emphasis mine. The rest of that paragraph simply says to me that the article was written by a liberal against the electoral college. Though, it was there to keep someone incompetent from becoming president. I think this is a major factor in why liberals want to get rid of it. They feel it has become a tool of conservatives. It was never intended to be partisan.

Notice how much the founding fathers were afraid of a direct democracy. This is what we have tried to become over the years and it is what most politicians will call the U.S. today. It is directly against what was intended.

I am for an electoral college system. If we move to a popular vote system, one side will be doomed. If we want to ensure the college of electors is representing ideals instead of candidates, we must make some changes to who can attempt to influence them and reiterate the importance of electing a candidate with qualifications. After all, that is their primary job.

It may be time to look into changes in this process. It may be necessary to require that the members be of a minority party or one that has no affiliation to any party in the election. I don't know for certain, but redistricting in Pennsylvania has a terrible history and it hasn't changed with the new rules. It's only switched to the opposing views from the last election. That isn't anything like fair or equal. Something must be done to attempt to keep the system fair and balanced, as was intended.

 

I don't understand that. Why would a single district get split into two? Districts should be approximately the same size (by population) so why would one district get split?

And under my approach, it would not be permitted to use any voting stats as a reason for drawing district lines. Voting stats / affiliation of registered voters should just be ignored. Make the districts as geographically compact as possible, but taking into account things like natural boundaries.

Then, let the chips fall where they may. I have absolutely no idea whether this would benefit Rs or Ds. Probably would benefit them both in different places, but at least it would eliminate the practice of drawing boundaries specifically to help one party or the other.

 

your tune will change once the democrats are in power

 

That's exactly why it needs changed. Don't you think?

 

My tune never changes. I want fair and balanced elections, not gerrymandered messes full of political grabass.

 

No ****!

Because people define "fair" as if a state goes 50/50 in voting it should get 50/50 in districts even when the democrats pack themselves into Urban districts.

You cant have districts that represent communities and proportional districts by party vote because democrats tend to prefer to live in ideologically homogeneous communities. Suburbs who have vastly different values and interests than than urban cities have to be pulled into city districts to spread out the democrat vote. This results in the cities getting more representatives than they are entitled to and the suburbs get less simply because democrats are stuck up pricks.

If the cities are 90% democrat than those districts get a democrat with 90% of the vote. And the system works just fine because those democrats tend to be as wacko as the districts they represent. More ideologically balanced suburbs tend to elect more moderate representatives. That is the system working as intended.

 

3 million more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump in 2016.

This is a victory for America.

 

If you are a anything except a democrat in those areas, you may as well not vote. There is no chance of your vote being counted, using the electoral college method. They have made the electoral college a pain in the butt for conservatives, so that they will want rid of it, as well. It is a very intelligent method of control.

 

\

As far as I'm aware, Gerrymandering isn't the process of creating districts based on voting patterns. It's the process by using voting patterns to create districts that overwhelming vote one way or the other. A subtle, yet distinct difference.

Voting patterns should be the majority component of drawing districts. Yes it won't be absolute (as some people are still capable of changing which party they want to support), but the ultimate goal should be to have fair representation of the citizens. Having districts that are overwhelmingly one way, means that the Reps in Congress become way to partisan and then you end up where the US is at now. Gridlocked in any bi-partisan manner and increasingly divided, which then further divides the country as the rhetoric is only divisive.

How on earth would that system eliminate voters? I don't think you understood my point very well.

My point was, to make Every state have an equal number of votes in proportion to the voting population. Removing votes from states that have to many based on their population doesn't diminish that states power. It means it has the same power as more populace states.

When one side is at a 6, and the other is at a 12, bringing both to a 9 doesn't diminish the 12 in anyway. It brings it back down to where it should be.

 

Did you even bother to read my suggestion?

It would not take into account voting patterns. It would not try to reach a "fair" result. It would specifically not be allowed to take into account voting patterns.

If a state votes about 50/50 but the seats go 75/25 (or 25/75), so be it. Maybe some districts would get 90% wins. Maybe all districts would go 50% +1 vote for one party.

As I said, let the chips fall where they may.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I appreciate you don't believe in democracy. It's consistent with your demonstrated political affiliations.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think districts should be drawn in order to achieve a particular political end-result ("fairness"). I think they should be drawn compactly and logically. If that leads to some "unfairness", so be it. I suspect that over the country the "unfairness" will even out.

 

Cool beans, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Nice to see around here actually

Id probably agree with you more if society wasn't so divided and anti-'the other side'. Way to much potential for abuse without fair representation in congress.