How gerrymandering kept Democrats from winning even more seats Tuesday

Dems will gerrymander when in power as they have done before.

 

So, it's OK then?

 

It will happen. Power is addictive and anyone that wants that kind of power are those that want to control you.

 

well that's not true, there is no election for PM in Canada, the PM is just another representative/MP...local party constituencies choose their representative for election...national party members chooses their Party leader in national leadership conventions, the winner is designated PM if the party wins the election... the Party leader doesn't even need to be an elected MP ...every party can have a different method for choosing their local representative and Party leader

it's a messy system but infinitely better than what is defined as democratic in the US

 

The act of the people within subsets of the nation voting for delegates who then choose the HOS is the same. All of the specifics around that are different.

 

You're a prophet too?

Wow ... !

 

More one-liner nonsense in a Debate Forum. (Prove your accusation rather than just stating it as a "truth"!)

Will it ever cease ... ?

 

Not aware of recent history eh? Just discover the internet?

 

Gud deeebaytin', mie frennd!

 

Can't spell either? Maybe you'd be happier on a Message Board?

After all, this is a Debate Forum - and I'll leave you to look up the meaning of that word all by yourself ...

 

The same doctor who gave Trump a diagnosis of bone spurs has removed your ability to detect irony.

 

Some people must have the last word.

You've had yours. Do you feel better now ... ?

 

No. I have painful bone spurs.

 

There you go. You will love a one party system.

 

Yes, the party or politician that obtains the most votes, as counted, and - for the presidency - NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE ... !

 

What is absolutely necessary is that the vote for public-office MUST BE FREE OF ANY MANIPULATION BY GERRYMANDERING OR AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

I have no fear whatsoever that the balance of power will - in a two-party system - move between the Right and the Left. As it does most often. That is the "checks and balance" that our founding fathers wanted from the very beginning of the nation.

And not what we have now. Had he known, Washington would turn over in his grave ... !

 

in Canada we avoid gerrymandering by having independent review of political electoral boundaries, I believe it is reviewed every ten years and the commission members are changed each time...

"The commissions each work separately to:

• Propose a new electoral map for their province by considering such criteria as average population numbers, communities of identity and interest, historical patterns of an electoral district, and geographic size of electoral districts
• Consult with Canadians through public hearings
• Submit a report on their considerations and propose electoral map to the House of Commons
• Consider objections from members of the House of Commons
• Prepare a final report outlining the electoral boundaries for their province

It is important to note that commissions do consider the input received from Canadians and members of the House of Commons when determining the boundaries. However, as independent bodies, they make all final decisions as to where these boundaries will lie."

 

I suspect you would hate a single party system if you had to live under one.

 

maybe you haven't heard there are many, many, many countries that have functional multi-party democracies with out an electoral college...in fact I don't know of another country that has an electoral college...
the only difference between a party state like china and the US is the US has one additional party, whereas other democracies have a multiple of political parties which makes them more democratic

 

I am not promoting a single-party system. (You badly need to take a course in modern English!)

I am arguing for a multiparty system without the manipulations of illicit Gerrymandering and the unfair Electoral College. Uncle Sam must rid himself of both distortions of and to the popular-vote in America.

Wakey, wakey ... !

 

Wakey, wakey. Hate to tell you, my modern English is better than yours. Eliminating the electoral college would eliminate any possibility of a republican president. Nice for you but it results in what is in effect a one party system. Who do you think should define the congressional districts?

 

so you're advocating for an undemocratic process where by you feel extremist fascists should have an opportunity to govern? that's really messed up...I'd suggest moderate republicans shift to the center and pick up centrist democrats and leave the fascists in the cold...this is clearly a greed for power thing you've got going there...

 

And both parties as well.

 

Well, that bit in red above is just tough you-know-what for the Replicants.

Because first and foremost of what matters in a True Democracy is the will of the people as expressed in the popular-vote at all levels of governance (local, state and national). Not some slapdash gerrymandering for elected-office nor the manipulations of the Electoral College for the PotUS ... !

 

Why would eliminating the electoral college eliminate republican presidents or result in a single party rule?

Republican Presidents have won the popular vote previously. Bush Jr. did so in 2004.