QuoteIn Ohio today, voters have an opportunity to apply the cure.
Ohio Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering and establish a bipartisan Ohio Redistricting Commission to draw legislative district lines, is being pitched as a good-government reform. But that undersells its significance. This is a bold response to America’s broken political processes.
The vote on Issue 1 is one of a number of vital tests that are in the ballot in states across the country today, as Americans go to the polls for a classic off-year election.
http://www.thenation.com/article/if-ohio-bans-gerrymandering-today-there-could-be-hope-for-american-democracy/
Definitely more important than pot...
If they vote against the amendment it will be a sure sign the reason our political system is broken is because the voters are too stupid to live.
Being from Ohio I have strong doubts it's going to pass because Ohio over the past few years has been HEAVILY gerrymandered by republicans to the point that the same state Obama carried twice is now almost completely dominated by republicans and the secretary of state Husted is a fucking crooked just like the shithead governor.
The cities overwhelmingly usually vote democratic and yet rubes run the state with an iron fist. It's not AS IF Ohio has only a handful of big cities. They're not NY or LA, but there's Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, etc.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 03, 2015, 06:13:49 PM
Definitely more important than pot...
If they vote against the amendment it will be a sure sign the reason our political system is broken is because the voters are too stupid to live.
No, it's that the secretary of state in Ohio is a crook. So is the governor.
Right. This in a state that has already had the shit gerrymandered out of it.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 03, 2015, 06:22:28 PM
No, it's that the secretary of state in Ohio is a crook. So is the governor.
So are the most of the rest of them. But now that this measure is on the state wide ballot neither that nor the voting districts matter diddly. The whole state gets to vote, and if the measure fails it will be the voters that chose to fuck themselves.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 03, 2015, 06:39:15 PM
So are the most of the rest of them. But now that this measure is on the state wide ballot neither that nor the voting districts matter diddly. The whole state gets to vote, and if the measure fails it will be the voters that chose to fuck themselves.
It's an off year election. It should be held during the presidential election, but it goes to the ballot when few people bother to vote and even fewer even know the vote is even taking place.
Gerrymandering has been around for over 200 years. If we can ban it, ban it retroactively!
An independent, non=elected judiciary should oversee political boundaries ... not politicians.
Issue 1 was passed:
http://www.cleveland.com/election-results/index.ssf/2015/11/statewide_results_for_ohio_iss.html (http://www.cleveland.com/election-results/index.ssf/2015/11/statewide_results_for_ohio_iss.html)
QuoteHere are the unofficial results for statewide issues from the Ohio Secretary of State's website. Latest update: 1 a.m.
State Issue 1
Issue 1 creates a process for drawing legislative districts to discourage dominant parties from setting boundaries that strongly favor themselves by requiring that the other major party agree to the map. (read more)
YES 2,025,467
NO 808,999
I've never sat down and tried to figure out logically how gerrymandering works, but it always struck me that if you create a district that favors Republicans by excluding as many Democrats as you can, it would result in other districts heavily weighted with all those excluded Democrats. I guess politicians just figured out it's a puzzle that does have a solution, even though it intuitively seems like it couldn't be done at first glance. Creative little devils, those Republicans and Democrats. You can't let them out of your sight for a minute.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2015, 08:56:12 AM
I've never sat down and tried to figure out logically how gerrymandering works, but it always struck me that if you create a district that favors Republicans by excluding as many Democrats as you can, it would result in other districts heavily weighted with all those excluded Democrats. I guess politicians just figured out it's a puzzle that does have a solution, even though it intuitively seems like it couldn't be done at first glance. Creative little devils, those Republicans and Democrats. You can't let them out of your sight for a minute.
The problem in a gerrymandered district, whether it's Republican or Democrat, is that the incumbent is practically assured of being re-elected. That tends to get candidates with extreme views, less willing to cooperate or compromise. Get a few dozens of those and you get gridlock in Congress.
I like this illustration.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg/720px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png)
We don't have gerrymandering in Utah because the whole fucking state is Mormon Republican. We do have salamanders. I know. I used to kill them with my .22.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 05, 2015, 10:55:07 AM
I like this illustration.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg/720px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png)
There you go! The illustration quickly explains what I didn't want to spend time trying to understand. Thanks.
Apparently, in Illinois, the situation is reversed with Democrats gerrymandering the Hell out of the Chicago area. I have a Republican friend who told me this was happening, and he actually acted like it was a Democrat thing. I do think the concept sucks and should be eliminated, however.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/800px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png) (http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/800px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png.html)
Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts, as a dragon-like "monster." Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name.
What i dont get is why US dont let the fucking votes decide instead! Why group at all?
States need districts to allow for local representation. Alabama has 7 congressional districts. I only vote in one of them. People in other parts of the state get to elect their own representatives.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 06, 2015, 03:29:45 PM
What i dont get is why US dont let the fucking votes decide instead! Why group at all?
Because of districting. Districts are drawn to best represent the population's subareas both nationally, statewide, and locally.
I live in Texas. Texas is an enormous and extremely diverse state consisting of 268,820 square miles (696,200 square km). For example, people in El Paso have very different political interests than people in Dallas, which isn't surprising considering one is a desert town that borders Juarez, Mexico (one of the most violent cities in the world thanks to cartel violence) and the other is a massive metroplex in North Texas with a population of six and a half million extremely diverse residents sitting on possibly the largest natural gas reservoir in the country. People with such varied political needs require separate representation and districts have to be redrawn periodically to account for population growth and decline in certain areas so that representation is not only appropriate for the interests of a specific region but numerically fair.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 06, 2015, 04:21:41 PM
Because of districting. Districts are drawn to best represent the population's subareas both nationally, statewide, and locally.
I live in Texas. Texas is an enormous and extremely diverse state consisting of 268,820 square miles (696,200 square km). For example, people in El Paso have very different political interests than people in Dallas, which isn't surprising considering one is a desert town that borders Juarez, Mexico (one of the most violent cities in the world thanks to cartel violence) and the other is a massive metroplex in North Texas with a population of six and a half million extremely diverse residents sitting on possibly the largest natural gas reservoir in the country. People with such varied political needs require separate representation and districts have to be redrawn periodically to account for population growth and decline in certain areas so that representation is not only appropriate for the interests of a specific region but numerically fair.
Why? Why would geographic area have anything to do with the impact of your vote? Every vote should have the same weight.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 06, 2015, 04:30:17 PM
Why? Why would geographic area have anything to do with the impact of your vote? Every vote should have the same weight.
It's not just about
electing those people, but about how those representatives represent the people that elected them.
The U.S. and the individual states aren't direct democracies where people show up to vote on every single issue: that's why we elect representatives to propose and enact legislation on our behalves. And those representatives represent us based on what we want, and what we want depends a lot on where we live.
When I lived in Texas the street I lived on was about 5 blocks and yet carved up into 4-5 congressional districts. Some people on the street would have had to drive 10-30 miles just to vote so they didn't bother. Many districts run along freeway corridors not much wider than a single street and may run 40 miles .. It's a real scam.
I really didn't expect it to pass in Ohio .. Bad news for the rubes. HA!
Non-Americans don't get our Federal system of government. They don't understand why our elected King doesn't just appoint local representatives from the ginormous corrupt capital city. Fictional fear of this is exactly why the Civil War ... and state's rights are issues. Local politics in places like France or England ... are top down, not bottom up. In that sense, the US is still feudal, not national.
That and Texas alone is bigger than all of France. Yet France is made up of at least 4 distinct regions ... which don't have the same politics, and all of which hate Paris.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 06, 2015, 07:34:05 PM
When I lived in Texas the street I lived on was about 5 blocks and yet carved up into 4-5 congressional districts. Some people on the street would have had to drive 10-30 miles just to vote so they didn't bother. Many districts run along freeway corridors not much wider than a single street and may run 40 miles .. It's a real scam.
I really didn't expect it to pass in Ohio .. Bad news for the rubes. HA!
Gerrymandering is worse in Texas than perhaps any other state.
And no ... the US government is based on the idea, that citizens voting directly on issues is a very bad idea. Some state-wide ballot issues get around that, but sort of prove the point ... that direct democracy doesn't work. You need a professional political class to run things on the people's behalf.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 06, 2015, 05:12:09 PM
It's not just about electing those people, but about how those representatives represent the people that elected them.
The U.S. and the individual states aren't direct democracies where people show up to vote on every single issue: that's why we elect representatives to propose and enact legislation on our behalves. And those representatives represent us based on what we want, and what we want depends a lot on where we live.
i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 01:32:41 AM
i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.
Oh, you mean voting for the president? You should have said that right off. The replies may have better suited your needs.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 01:32:41 AM
i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.
Because local districts don't really matter when voting for the presidency, but the U.S. has more than the national executive branch that it votes for.
But this topic is about gerrymandering, which is redrawing district lines after a census to benefit particular parties or people by ensuring each district contains certain amounts of voters, which certainly does matter in local and state elections.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 01:32:41 AM
i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.
Gerrymandering is about Congressional elections. For the presidency, it's a separate vote - these are called
electoral votes. Each state is given some many
electoralvotes. Depending on the states, it could be the winner takes all, or the
electoral votes are distributed proportionally to the popular votes. There are 538
electoral votes in all, a majority of 270 wins the presidency. Historically, most states vote traditionally - either Republican or Democrat. There are only a dozen or so "swing" states, which basically decide who gets to be president. That's why a candidate too far to the Left, or too far to the Right, doesn't have much of a chance to win.
Yes, there could be plenty of head scratching about the Electoral College. But basically this is a broadened version of the Holy Roman Empire ... with its Electors ... who rules princely states within German territory like Saxony for example.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 01:32:41 AM
i have said nothing sbout direct democracy. I have no problem with Representational democracy .
What you write still doesnt explain why local district votings should have any bearing when voting for the president.
Local voting districts don't have anything to do with presidential elections. In most states the electoral college members are appointed by the different political parties. Each party selects it's own representatives. There are no requirements to select representatives from congressional districts so theoretically all of a parties electors could be from the same district, but in practice it usually doesn't work that way. At the conclusion of the popular vote the selected electors of the party that wins the popular vote become the official electors of the state. In all states but two those electors usually cast all their votes for their party's presidential candidate.
QuoteNon-Americans don't get our Federal system of government.
I'd venture to guess that very few Americans get how our federal system works. It's truly amazing how many people think that the president has complete power and will vote for someone in the belief that just because they become president they can automatically override anything that the congress says or does almost to the point where a candidate could claim that upon being elected they would cure the common cold on day one and if they don't it's because they were bought off.
Hey, just google it and you'll find that Obama is a reptile and a secret moozlim, communist, Nazi born in Kenya.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 07, 2015, 10:43:01 AM
I'd venture to guess that very few Americans get how our federal system works.
True.
Even as I was typing my last few responses in this thread, I was laughing all the way to the "post" button because the entirety of my message was what you would find in a textbook written by some idiotic idealist, not in reality written by money.
Direct democracy is about as stupid as it gets. Just imagine for a moment if every item in the federal budget alone had to be voted on by individuals. First, voter turnout would be much lower than it is now and even if it was 100% nobody would ever have the time to do anything much less go to work. In some abstract ways it might make sense, but in practical terms it would be possibly the least efficient way to pass laws. Very few people ever bother to learn much of anything about candidates for office so tack on that all the details of any law and the public would vote on what? Whether the ballot was printed using serrif type or sanserrif type? Now we're to the point where we're given the choice to vote for the dumbest asshole with money or the candidate with the better hair style.
Come to think about it perhaps direct democracy might actually be better considering the clowns we get to vote for.
Sorry. I ment congress, not president...
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 01:14:16 PM
Sorry. I ment congress, not president...
Then your question was answered before you mentioned president. Congressional districts are about local representation. If everyone in New York got to vote on all the New York congressmen most of the congressmen would be from New York City and much of the rest of the state would have no one to represent their interests.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 07, 2015, 02:43:05 PM
Then your question was answered before you mentioned president. Congressional districts are about local representation. If everyone in New York got to vote on all the New York congressmen most of the congressmen would be from New York City and much of the rest of the state would have no one to represent their interests.
So what? Is it "the interests" or the people that votes? Small groups should have little representation. Tiny grouos should have no representation at all.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 02:50:23 PM
So what? Is it "the interests" or the people that votes? Small groups should have little representation. Tiny groups should have no representation of themselves at all.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 02:50:23 PM
So what? Is it "the interests" or the people that votes? Small groups should have little representation. Tiny grouos should have no representation at all.
You asked why we have congressional districts. The answer is it provides for local representation. You don't like it? Is that your point? If so what would you rather see?
Old gentleman I worked for once told me there is nothing works so well that somebody won't try to fuck it up. I miss old Ralph.....
Districting makes sense if you think about the fact that heretofore the ability to count/correlate individual votes would be near if not completely impossible to do, given the geographic size and mixture of rural versus urban populations to gather it from. There has been a great deal of talk that now we can go to an individual voting system since we are now electronically connected and because of the internet. but until some solid and reliable method of doing that, that avoids the ability to corrupt it comes up, we are stuck with it. Hopefully all the citizenry will follow Ohio's example and clean up their politician's act.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 02:50:41 PM
Harsh. Some forms of representative calculation, actually give proportional representation to small groups ... better than the American or British winner-take-all districts. But then we would be more directly represented by parties, rather than by candidates (of parties). It is a toss up. If your legislature has too many small groups, you can't form a majority to get legislation passed, and the US would be like Italy.