Educate me.....Redistricting "Gerrymandering"

Let me give you a simple example to illustrate.

There are 190 red persons and 210 blue persons.
So blue has an overall majority.

You divide that up into four separate districts:
60 red, 40 blue
60 red, 40 blue
60 red, 40 blue
10 red 90 blue

Red now has a majority in 3 out of 4 of the districts.

 

When the hell is the US going to wake-up to the merit of a National Identity Card that employs our Social Security Number as an identifier (along with a photo)? Just like an internal "passport" except one needs it only to identify oneself for state-provided services. (Policing being one of them.)

All the remarks here abou "the individual state being More Important than the UNITED states is a load off hogwash. The way we make laws in the US takes the individual responsibilities between the states and Federal government very largely into consideration. (That does not means mistakes are not made, but it does mean one helluva lotta them are avoided.)

All the EU countries have such an Identity Card and though they are falsified (to get entry by non-EU people) nobody yet has employed them for any other service than personal identification when stopped by the police for a traffic violation!

That is, more than double the population of the US: 740 million people in the EU vs 325 million in the US ...

 

Yes, so that is called gerrymandering, and a good reason to get rid of it!

One person, one vote. Multiple lots of people (but always the same fixed total number per elected representative office) vote for their representatives to either state or national office.

There is no other way to stop the political parties from manipulating the personal vote for their own purposes ... !

 

It's not individual states. I think it more of a fear of big brother, keeping track of one's every move, what they are doing 24/7, invasion of private lives. What most Americans don't know is the government can easily find out whatever one is doing and where one went in a whim. Modern technology. One doesn't have any privacy anymore if one is suspected of something or the government just wants to learn more about you.

So why not, I don't have a problem with a national ID. The government knows more about me than I do myself. 21 years active duty, 26 more working for the Army as a civilian with one of the highest security clearances.

 

Not necessarily.

There are some important reasons districting exists and everything is not a direct democracy.

 

Resistance has been put up against this idea in the past for civil liberties reasons.

I'm not even going to bother to explain it here because so many threads have been started about it in the past.

But with the current immigration fiasco, they might just become required.

 

no, it is made for the smaller population states to have a greater say than their population would otherwise have.
I rather see and electoral college by congressional district rather than state.

Why do you feel the electoral college has to be by state and not by congressional district. You win that district you have one vote. Rather than by state on a winner take all basis. Se I don't see how the electoral college gives more power to small states, they only get delegates based on population. No the composition of the senate certainly does, but I don't see what the EC does for small states.

 

I migrated to France. Meaning this: There was no way in hell I was going to get a job in France (expect very low paying cash-jobs).

And the police actively seek people working such jobs. Mostly in agriculture. And what happens if illegal people are found working on a farm.

The owner pays one helluva fine. Do that once or twice (with a BigFine!) and they don't hire illegal personnel.

What about seasonal workers? There are plenty that come in from the poorer East European countries (like Romania) that are members of the EU.

So? So, if necessary, the fruit-pickers (and other workers seeking part-time jobs in the US) can do the same. They can go into a US embassy office and pick-up a work-permit with a start and end date on it. If they get caught working with an outdated Work Permit, then they can be jailed and employed to work at zero-wages on farms.

They won't work? Then they don't go to the farms and spend six-months in jail before being databased and forever prohibited from entering the US again or they will be jailed for no less than ten-years.

To manage migrants a country needs Identity Cards, and that starts with the nationals. The foreign worker Identity Card is similar but not the same. There is an "out-of-date" date and that is where anyone hiring them is up for a wholloping good fine.

Nothing can be done if it is only being done at entry points. The law of the land is throughout the land ...

 

Explain one "important reason". Just one ...

 

Ask any European if their Civil Liberties are betrayed just because they carry an Identity Card.

Be prepared from them a blank stare ...

 

They do not deserve a "greater say". One person, one vote, and that one vote is counted to elect a representative without the slightest manipulation by an UNNECESSARY "Electoral College".

Do you understand that the EC was "invented" at a time when the US did not have a telegraph or even roads with which to get the national vote to Congress. Some people felt that if a "college" went to report the state vote it would be more acceptable. That is no longer necessary!

Because states are organized by boundaries, so each state is considered integrally.

Yes, not for the Senate, but for the HofR, there could be one common rule: So many representatives per so many thousands of voters. (Not total population as it is today, only because there is no other population assessment.) With a National Identity Card that rule need no longer apply, but one would have to prove they live in the state.

How is that done? By declaring their residence that should coincide with the address employed for state taxation purposes. What about the unemployed? If they receive state subventions they can prove residence. If they cannot prove identity, place of birth, and residence, then they have no right to vote.

It all starts with an Identity Card that is established at birth and one collects (in the form a tangible ID-card) at the age of 16 when allowed to vote ...

 

Indeed! Whether there's a winner-take-all rule in the Electoral College (electing the PotUS) whilst one HofR representative elected in a jurisdiction of 250,000 people heavily Democrat and another (in the same state) of 25,000 people* (electing also one HofR representative) - then Very Clearly the vote in both instances is being manipulated.

One must be deaf, dumb and blind to think that such is a fair and impartial democracy ....

*Of course, I am exaggerating the comparative numbers purposefully!

 

To take the two extremes, California gets 55 electoral votes for 37.3 million people (2010 Census), or one electoral vote for approximately each 680,000 people. Wyoming receives 3 votes for its 568,000 people, or about one per 190,000.

 

And so?

What is your conclusion?

 

Redistricting is so effective it gave the democrats control of the house.

lol

Oh and that voter suppression thing also allowed them to gain control.

 

How many times must we explain that our nation doesn't elect presidents according to the popular vote.

 

And how many times must I repeat that - as a consequence of the above - the US is not a True Democracy.

The popular-vote is the key element of any such true-democracy. Out of a will to dominate politics, both major parties employed Gerrymandering and the Electoral College manipulate the popular-vote to arrive at their own ends. Why? T

o finally elect a PotUS and a Congress that would reduce Upper-income Taxation and make a select few very, very rich. It's all about obtaining and keeping great-bundles of money.

Howzat? Dead simple. To assure for instance that the concentration of markets allow private-capital to dominate markets (meaning "fix prices"). The method is called Market Oligopolies. From here: What are Current Examples of Oligopolies?

No Truly Fair & Equitable Democracy on earth should allow such a manipulation because it raises the cost of living for all in order to generate illegal profits for a select few ...

 

You explain nothing, really. You don't even recognized that what happens is a manipulation of the popular-vote - and it should be illegal.

No major modern democracy employs such manipulative methods ....

 

We aren't a democracy.

Maybe that's the problem you are having.

 

Yes, because the population of the state as a whole needs to be redistributed. Also, do you think that population change won't happen over most of the state?

 

You can't fully predict how people will vote but you can predict where persons of certain ethnic groups will live. Some southern states arranged it so they will always have one African-American Congressman but possibly never 2.
Massachusetts might be the best place to look at changing district lines. With Republicans outnumbered they eliminated one in the 1980 redistricting, then gave the Democrats a chance for the next opening with the 1990 redistricting.
With all Democrats by 1996 there was little to fear, but there was one district a Republican might win. In 2010 they made an adjustment that prompted their least favorite Democrat to retire.
Based on the present situation I predict that after the 2020 census they'll find a way to put the new black woman against the conservative Democrat in the 2022 primary.

 

Dunno where you get that idea, but gerrymandering is a consequence of A1S4C1, which vests default authority over congressional elections in state legislatures, which can be unicameral as far as the Constitution is concerned.

I can hardly feature the population of a city being unchanged from month to month, let alone decade to decade. That aside, I have no idea what problem you think it would solve.

 

And the problem you are having is that your rebuttals are assinities without the slightest argumentative support. This is a Debate Forum!

They are just one-liner shots in the dark - THAT'S THE PROBLEM YOU ARE HAVING ...

 

Well you keep bringing up that no industrialized democracy has this system but we are not a democracy.

Why you feel that is irrelevant is odd to me.

Maybe you just don't like being schooled in the American political system which I can fully understand.

Still sad though that you are trying to argue a point that doesn't exist.

Would you like me to explain the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy to you?

I can if that would help.

Here is a quote of yours to validate my point.

Well I say good for them. If we ever become one I hope we can attain their level.

lol