Why do Libs riot ?

[lawpoke87]

Aston,

Dems controlled 61 state houses compared to 36 for the Pubs in 2010. Those numbers today are Pubs 68 Dems 30. That is a remarkable loss of support. Unless the Dems were behind gerrymandering to benefit the Pubs from 2010 and after there is no way the gains by the Pubs can be explained simply by the gerrymandering argument since the Dems controlled a vast majority of the state legislatures...who would have done the redistricting. Might I suggest that the Dems hard turn to the left over the past 6 plus years have not been inline with a majority of the population resulting in massive losses at the state level? Gerrymandering by a party who controlled 36 legislative bodies make no sense.

To take it one step further, in 2010 the Pubs only controlled both chambers in 9 states. In the 41 other states the Dems either controlled both chambers or at least one. Giving them either the power to draw the local districts or block the Pubs from doing the same.

 

[astonmartin708]

Aston,

Dems controlled 61 state houses compared to 36 for the Pubs in 2010. Those numbers today are Pubs 68 Dems 30. That is a remarkable loss of support. Unless the Dems were behind gerrymandering to benefit the Pubs from 2010 and after there is no way the gains by the Pubs can be explained simply by the gerrymandering argument since the Dems controlled a vast majority of the state legislatures...who would have done the redistricting. Might I suggest that the Dems hard turn to the left over the past 6 plus years have not been inline with a majority of the population resulting in massive losses at the state level? Gerrymandering by a party who controlled 36 legislative bodies make no sense.

"Republicans had the upper hand: thanks to the gains they made in 2010 state-level elections, Republicans controlled the redistricting process in states with 40 percent of the seats in the House, Democrats controlled it in states with 10 percent of the seats, and the rest of the seats were drawn by courts, states with divided governments or commissions."

Might I suggest that you're reading a bit too much into this purported shift in ideology?

 

[lawpoke87]

"Republicans had the upper hand: thanks to the gains they made in 2010 state-level elections, Republicans controlled the redistricting process in states with 40 percent of the seats in the House, Democrats controlled it in states with 10 percent of the seats, and the rest of the seats were drawn by courts, states with divided governments or commissions."

Might I suggest that you're reading a bit too much into this purported shift in ideology?

We were talking about state level elections and gerrymandering not congressional districts. Those numbers I just posted are accurate and the Dems losses at the local level cannot be explained by gerrymandering as the Dems controlled a large majority of the state chambers. Why did they suffer such massive losses over the last 6 years at the local level?

Also...do you have a list of congressional districts which have been redrawn in the last 6 years?

 

[URedskin54]

1. My boy?
2. I can agree with him that there are, of course, geographic disadvantages. People tend to live around people that they agree with. However, I would disagree with him that gerrymandering is only happening marginally.

Go look at the Tulsa metro's voting districts for the state house on balletpedia.com. You'll notice that the districts are specifically drawn in odd fashions to pack the African American areas in the North of Tulsa into a couple districts while keeping them separate from the majority white districts just to the south. Realistically, you would expect there to be some overlap since the cruddy areas of Peoria aren't too far off from the affluent areas near Utica.

Look at the results of the last election in those areas. The packed Democratic areas went SUBSTANTIALLY for the Dems, while the nearby majority white districts were closer to 55-45 in their margin in favor of the Republican candidates. More appropriately drawn districts might have changed some of those results.

That's the point. Dems have packed themselves into urban areas and if districts are drawn using non-partisan districting principles R's will have a substantial advantage. That's the geographic advantage. The only way to ensure that Dems are more evenly dispersed and get proportional seats like you want would be to engage in partisan gerrymandering to help them. Gerrymandering has produced almost none of the margin.

This is also one of the biggest problems with Sam Wang's model. It starts with the assumption that under a non-partisan districting process 50% of the votes would equally roughly 50% of the seats. That's beyond stupid.

 

[astonmartin708]

That's the point. Dems have packed themselves into urban areas and if districts are drawn using non-partisan districting principles R's will have a substantial advantage. That's the geographic advantage. The only way to ensure that Dems are more evenly dispersed and get proportional seats like you want would be to engage in partisan gerrymandering to help them. Gerrymandering has produced almost none of the margin.

This is also one of the biggest problems with Sam Wang's model. It starts with the assumption that under a non-partisan districting process 50% of the votes would equally roughly 50% of the seats. That's beyond stupid.

No, if the districts were drawn in a non partisan fashion, there would be a more even advantage. Right now the dems are winning their districts by huge margins, and the adjacent districts which are drawn to include as many republican leaning interest groups as possible seem to be much closer than the democratic ones. So, if some of the surplus votes from the populous democratic districts were shifted towards those adjacent ones, they might win more seats, or at least the margin would be closer / fairer.

 

[URedskin54]

No, if the districts were drawn in a non partisan fashion, there would be a more even advantage. Right now the dems are winning their districts by huge margins, and the adjacent districts which are drawn to include as many republican leaning interest groups as possible seem to be much closer than the democratic ones. So, if some of the surplus votes from the populous democratic districts were shifted towards those adjacent ones, they might win more seats, or at least the margin would be closer / fairer.

I don't know how else to say it. The non-partisan districting principles(contiguous, compact, etc) result in a large republican advantage specifically because Dems and Republicans are distributed differently. It's unavoidable. If you want to draw them fairly(as opposed to purposely getting a distribution you want) you're going to get clustered urban districts with almost entirely democrats. You actually have to draw an urban district in a partisan manner to make sure that it includes republicans from the suburbs. That's not how non-partisan districting is done. Districts are not drawn to make sure you get a relatively even distribution of Rs and Ds.

 

[noble cane]

No, if the districts were drawn in a non partisan fashion, there would be a more even advantage. Right now the dems are winning their districts by huge margins, and the adjacent districts which are drawn to include as many republican leaning interest groups as possible seem to be much closer than the democratic ones. So, if some of the surplus votes from the populous democratic districts were shifted towards those adjacent ones, they might win more seats, or at least the margin would be closer / fairer.

So you are asking to gerrymander the districts such that the rural areas lose their representation?

 

[astonmartin708]

I don't know how else to say it. The non-partisan districting principles(contiguous, compact, etc) result in a large republican advantage specifically because Dems and Republicans are distributed differently. It's unavoidable. If you want to draw them fairly(as opposed to purposely getting a distribution you want) you're going to get clustered urban districts with almost entirely democrats. You actually have to draw an urban district in a partisan manner to make sure that it includes republicans from the suburbs. That's not how non-partisan districting is done. Districts are not drawn to make sure you get a relatively even distribution of Rs and Ds.

This entire comment is complete BS. Look at the Tulsa area districts and how oddly some of the prongs off of the heavily democratic districts are shaped. Don't tell me it's not gerrymandering to not lump all the democrats together into 3 or 4 districts by drawing the following arbitrary lines.

 

[URedskin54]

This entire comment is complete BS. Look at the Tulsa area districts and how oddly some of the prongs off of the heavily democratic districts are shaped. Don't tell me it's not gerrymandering to not lump all the democrats together into 3 or 4 districts by drawing the following arbitrary lines.

Not BS. Read it again. Where did I say that gerrymandering doesn't happen? Or that districts are never drawn in partisan ways? What I said is exactly what the data says: that most of the advantage is already built in because of geography and population distribution, and that while gerrymandering does happen, its effect is marginal.

 

[URedskin54]

Tulsa is also a piss poor example btw. See if you can figure out why. It's not hard.

And you keep shifting back and forth between state legislatures and the House. The original question was whether gerrymandering the shape of districts was the reason for Rs big advantage in the House.

 

[lawpoke87]

This entire comment is complete BS. Look at the Tulsa area districts and how oddly some of the prongs off of the heavily democratic districts are shaped. Don't tell me it's not gerrymandering to not lump all the democrats together into 3 or 4 districts by drawing the following arbitrary lines.

Your argument as it relates to Oklahoma makes zero sense. Oklahoma state house districts are redrawn every ten years. The Dems were in control of both chambers in 2000....when the districts were redrawn. From 2000 to 2010 the Dems lost 20 House Seats resulting in loss of the House and faired similarly in the Senate. These losses had zero to do with redistricting (which the Dems controlled). You can fall back on the gerrymandering argument if you wish but if you examine the numbers you would see broadbase loss of support for the Democractic party at the state level. A scenario which has played out across he county in recent years

 

[TUMe]

The Democrats don't control the White House, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court and they are at historic lows in governors and state legislatures . They are looking very hard for the cause of this .

They keep coming up with reasons why it is the fault of the Republicans . But they fail to consider that it could be that the people don't like what they are selling .

 

[URedskin54]

Trump won the electoral college because Republicans gerrymandered the state boundaries to condense Democrat voting blocks into more non-competitive states.

 

[aTUfan]

Trump won the electoral college because Republicans gerrymandered the state boundaries to condense Democrat voting blocks into more non-competitive states.

?

 

[astonmartin708]

Trump won the electoral college because Republicans gerrymandered the state boundaries to condense Democrat voting blocks into more non-competitive states.

No, Trump won because we use an electoral college, which inherently puts a bias towards unpopulated states.

 

[URedskin54]

No, Trump won because we use an electoral college, which inherently puts a bias towards unpopulated states.

Too easy. Even if the "bias" was removed and states were all weighted perfectly proportionally Trump still wins, because like I said, Dem voting blocks are disproportionately in non-competitive states. Remove all the senators and Hilldog still loses 246-192.

 

[TUMe]

No, Trump won because we use an electoral college, which inherently puts a bias towards unpopulated states.

Remember my post where I showed that of the 12 smallest population states, six were Republican and six were Democrat? States like New Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. Same for the most populous states. You bring back the same non-fact.

 

[astonmartin708]

Remember my post where I showed that of the 12 smallest population states, six were Republican and six were Democrat? States like New Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. Same for the most populous states. You bring back the same non-fact.

Do I have to make a spreadsheet for you of the actual value of a person's vote in each state?

 

[lawpoke87]

No, Trump won because we use an electoral college, which inherently puts a bias towards unpopulated states.

This isn't difficult even for the math challenged. If electoral votes were weighted by state populations alone (eliminating your unpopulated state bias reasoning) then Trump wins 303 to 235. Your argument here makes zero sense....as does your argument trying the explain the Dems loss of seats at the state level by gerrymandering.

 

[TUMe]

Do I have to make a spreadsheet for you of the actual value of a person's vote in each state?

You don't have to do anything. You are simply wrong. Your time would be better spent getting a constitutional amendment. I assume you are young, because it will take a long time. Even the small demo states would be against it.

 

[TUMe]

Do I have to make a spreadsheet for you of the actual value of a person's vote in each state?

I can save you some work, Aston. The state that get screwed this worst is Montana. And California is at about the average in voters per House seat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

The small states get it just as bad as the big ones, especially when they are right at the cut-off between 1 and 2 representatives. Florida and Texas get a worse deal than CA and NY. You can now thank me for setting you straight.

 

[astonmartin708]

I can save you some work, Aston. The state that get screwed this worst is Montana. And California is at about the average in voters per House seat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

The small states get it just as bad as the big ones, especially when they are right at the cut-off between 1 and 2 representatives. Florida and Texas get a worse deal than CA and NY. You can now thank me for setting you straight.

No, the state that gets screwed worst is California, because of the two extra electoral votes that every state gets which basically correspond to the Senate. California has roughly 12 percent of the national population, but come time to elect a president, they only get (approx) 10% of the vote. Texas, only 7 percent of the vote when they make up over 8 percent of the population.

The state that are closest to actual popular representation as far as electoral votes goes are

#1: Maryland
#2: Indiana
#3: Tennessee

I did a quick percent error calculation on all the states. 32 of them are over represented.

Of those 32:
18 have historically leaned Republican
11 have historically leaned Democratic
and 3 have been consistent battleground states (NH, MN, WI).

Of the other 19 states (plus DC), 5 are more or less accurately represented (MD, IN, MO, TN, WA)

Of the remaining 14 which are the most underrepresented:
7 tended to lean Democratic (I included MI in this number)
4 tended to lean Republican
and 3 were consistent battlegrounds: (VA, FL, OH)

It seems to me that the Republican party has an inherent advantage due to the poor structuring of the Electoral College in representing states + people instead of just people. Dems tend to have fewer over represented states and more underrepresented ones.

 

[lawpoke87]

Again...the electoral math works out as 303 to 235 if the state votes would have been cast based solely on population percentage. That's a difference of 3 votes. Why is this your argument under these circumstances? The difference negligible.

 

[TUMe]

So in this election 6 that lean Demo were under represented by your theory [MI went R this time]
7 Republican states were under represented 4 normally republican and 2 battleground states plus MI
Now add in Virginia to the D's and you have 7 and 7. And that's by your theory.

Again you blame small states, but of the smallest 12 states, it's 6 and 6 with Montana actually getting a bad deal.
Big state you say get the worst deal. But the top 6 are split 3 and 3 in this election. And of the top 10 only 3 went Democrat. The Republicans were the ones getting the short end.

The fact is that in this election state size had no impact on the winner and nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment would change that. Hold your breath until that happens.

 

[astonmartin708]

Again...the electoral math works out as 303 to 235 if the state votes would have been cast based solely on population percentage. That's a difference of 3 votes. Why is this your argument under these circumstances? The difference negligible.

It's not just about this election though. It's about every election in the future. Really, this election came down to a couple thousand people in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Florida who chose to believe the crap that Trump was pumping out. Two of any of those states flipping Clintons way would mean a completely different outcome. It's not like there was this seismic shift in support nationally for either party. I'm just of the opinion that every American's vote should count equally to every other American's.

 

[astonmartin708]

So in this election 6 that lean Demo were under represented by your theory [MI went R this time]
7 Republican states were under represented 4 normally republican and 2 battleground states plus MI
Now add in Virginia to the D's and you have 7 and 7. And that's by your theory.

Again you blame small states, but of the smallest 12 states, it's 6 and 6 with Montana actually getting a bad deal.
Big state you say get the worst deal. But the top 6 are split 3 and 3 in this election. And of the top 10 only 3 went Democrat. The Republicans were the ones getting the short end.

The fact is that in this election state size had no impact on the winner and nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment would change that. Hold your breath until that happens.

I don't care if it takes a constitutional amendment. It took a constitutional amendment to make the voting age 18. It's the right thing to do. I don't even care which party it helps in any given year.

 

[WATU2]

The Republican strategy is avoid becoming a less powerful minority by gerrymandering and restricting votes from groups of color which are becoming the new majority. Groundless, made up claims about voter fraud and the popular vote provide a thin tissue of cover. Trump for one brings it up at every speech and meeting with head of state. Back in the 30's this propaganda technique was labeled "The Big Lie."

 

[TUMe]

I don't care if it takes a constitutional amendment. It took a constitutional amendment to make the voting age 18. It's the right thing to do. I don't even care which party it helps in any given year.

Yeah, you say that but it just so happen the Democrats lost this year. He is the simple thing. R's won 30 states. D's won 20. Take away the Senate votes. 304-60=244 D's 227-40= 187 Needed to win 216.

 

[lawpoke87]

The Republican strategy is avoid becoming a less powerful minority by gerrymandering and restricting votes from groups of color which are becoming the new majority. Groundless, made up claims about voter fraud and the popular vote provide a thin tissue of cover. Trump for one brings it up at every speech and meeting with head of state. Back in the 30's this propaganda technique was labeled "The Big Lie."

How does a minority continue to grow it's power through state level elections so that the same is able to gerrymander these districts? Again....Dems are at their lowest level of representation at the state level in over 100 years. How does the majority continue to lose state level elections at an historic rate?

 

[TUMe]

The Republican strategy is avoid becoming a less powerful minority by gerrymandering and restricting votes from groups of color which are becoming the new majority. Groundless, made up claims about voter fraud and the popular vote provide a thin tissue of cover. Trump for one brings it up at every speech and meeting with head of state. Back in the 30's this propaganda technique was labeled "The Big Lie."

We have done Gerrymandering. Democrats control everything for a long time, did they gerrymander themselves out?

The election was won by the method proscribed in the Constitution. Everyone on sworn in swears to protect and defend the Constitution. You are still doing that if you get an Amendment. Or you can gripe but it still is done by the Constitution. The Constitution was not written on tissue. Both Republicans and Democrats have complained about voter fraud. Neither has had an ounce of proof.

 

[lawpoke87]

It's remarkable that not one Lib on this board is able (or willing) to recognize the root cause of the Dems decline. They would rather blame the Pubs for gerrymandering congressional districts and even somehow doing the same to state districts (even though the latter makes zero sense) for their historic fall rather than look at their huge loss of support in the state level elections which gave the Pubs the opportunity to redraw some maps. LIbs....the state level losses are the cause not the effect. I cannot understand why not one Lib on this board has acknowledged this simply and apparent fact. Maybe it's time to look inward for blame instead of always looking for the Republican boogey man to blame?

 

[TUMe]

I don't care if it takes a constitutional amendment. It took a constitutional amendment to make the voting age 18. It's the right thing to do. I don't even care which party it helps in any given year.

Yes they did get the 18 year old vote. It took the Vietnam War an young soldiers not able to vote. Constitutional amendments are possible, but it takes a large amount of agreement. Cutting electors for small states might not go over big in WY, RI, VT, NM et.al. Doing away with the Electoral College would be even harder. The main good it would do would be getting rid of the Iowa/New Hampshire primaries every cycle.

Our system isn't so strange. In the UK they elect Parliament and not the Prime Minister, who is chosen by the Party with the most member or sometimes, as a few years back, when Conservatives allied with Liberals to hold the majority over Labour.

 

[noble cane]

I guess it's time for the blue states to secede since they are getting screwed.

 

[astonmartin708]

Yes they did get the 18 year old vote. It took the Vietnam War an young soldiers not able to vote. Constitutional amendments are possible, but it takes a large amount of agreement. Cutting electors for small states might not go over big in WY, RI, VT, NM et.al. Doing away with the Electoral College would be even harder. The main good it would do would be getting rid of the Iowa/New Hampshire primaries every cycle.

Our system isn't so strange. In the UK they elect Parliament and not the Prime Minister, who is chosen by the Party with the most member or sometimes, as a few years back, when Conservatives allied with Liberals to hold the majority over Labour.

I know that you're right about the practical difficulty of passing an amendment in the first place, and above that, ratifying an amendment that would essentially strip some executive voting power from quite a few states.

Practically, it's pretty much impossible. But virtuosity of our system is clearly skewed due to the procedural algorithms that were created 55 powerful men nearly 250 years ago, at a time when a majority of people couldn't even vote (Women, minorities, non-property owners)

It's for these reasons that I've increasingly noticed my mind wandering to the notion of calling for a new constitutional convention, not to dissolve the republic, but to unilaterally address these constitutional issues with modern representation for a modern time. Not just things like voting procedure, but shoring up things like the constitutional checks and balances that have eroded over the centuries since our current law of the land was enacted.

I would hope that every interest group would benefit and that compromises would be made. Those people that want to argue for states rights would have a real opportunity for their representatives to lobby for those principals. There could be more appropriate language introduced for things like the right to bear arms, and technological rights to privacy, or a prenatal right to life. It would be whatever our modern society determined was fundamentally important to protect. But it wouldn't be a document that tries to address the issues of today via the processes and ideas that were (mostly) derived in a society that was almost completely different that ours.

I'm not saying that everything (like the bill of rights) needs to be tossed, but I'm saying that our society would benefit from a new social contract that more adequately addresses what our society believes to be natural rights.

 

[URedskin54]

So what I'm seeing here is atson realized his claim that Trump won because small states are over represented is dumb and provably false, so he pretended it didn't happen and started arguing about the merits of the electoral college again.

 

[astonmartin708]

So what I'm seeing here is atson realized his claim that Trump won because small states are over represented is dumb and provably false, so he pretended it didn't happen and started arguing about the merits of the electoral college again.

My apologies. They were unrelated facts. Trump didn't win because small states are over represented (although they are) he won because there are a few thousand more people in 4 states that are morons than aren't. Happy now?

Glad we could clear that up.

 

[noble cane]

I would go for an article 5 amendment convention of the states.. but a full on constitutional convention would be a prelude for the complete destruction of the republic... All because you didn't get the electoral result you wanted...

Sheesh you make me sound like a moderate.

 

[noble cane]

My apologies. They were unrelated facts. Trump didn't win because small states are over represented (although they are) he won because there are a few thousand more people in 4 states that are morons than aren't. Happy now?

Glad we could clear that up.

So.. you want to kill all the morons?

Or just the ones that didn't vote for HRC

 

[astonmartin708]

I would go for an article 5 amendment convention of the states.. but a full on constitutional convention would be a prelude for the complete destruction of the republic... All because you didn't get the electoral result you wanted...

Sheesh you make me sound like a moderate.

That's not necessarily true. The people of our country absolutely recognize the valuable merit that a good deal of our constitution contains, no one (at least not a majority) is going to want to throw out or change many parts of the constitution. The Republic wouldn't dissolve (most people like the fact that we're a Republic), it would just be a modification of our social contract. The constitution of the 18th century would be an excellent starting place for a modernized version.

And, it's not because I didn't get the electoral result I wanted, like I said, there are many constitutional issues that I think need to be resolved. Like the over-application of the 14th amendment to too many issues. It shouldn't just be a catch-all like it is right now. I think war powers should be given more explicitly back to congress, except in cases of nuclear relevancy. Privacy should have greater protections, and there are a host of procedural issues between the branches that need to be fixed in a more explicit manner.

 

[astonmartin708]

So.. you want to kill all the morons?

Or just the ones that didn't vote for HRC

Kill them? Who said anything about killing anyone?