Yes 0% 0 votes No 0% 0 votes
-
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:49 PM)
Gerrymandering, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means to "divide or arrange (a territorial unit) into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage". This is absolutely used in the presidential election since individual votes are pooled into a district vote, which is pooled into the state's EC vote, which is pooled, rather unfairly, into the vote to decide who represents the country as a whole.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:30 PM)
That would be true if electors truly had any power independent from the vote of the constituents in their district. Very few electors have ever tried to vote opposite of the voters. It's really a non-issue.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
MooseIndian — 5 years ago(August 15, 2020 09:00 AM)
You ****ing idiot Gerrymandering only applies to House of rep districts. It has nothing to do with anything else. Also, it should be noted the man himself pronounced his name as GAry with a hard G.
….out of darkness, out of mind, cast down into the Halls of the Blind! -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:23 PM)
You miss the point. The U.S. is not a centralized state. Again, it's a federal republic. That means power is diffused. States have rights which can't be overrode by the central government. Constitutionally it is 50 different entities.
It doesn't matter Kentucky versus California. That's irrelevant under a federal system. That's like saying in the U.N. it's unfair for the U.S. with 300 million people to have one vote in the General Assembly and for Ireland with 5 million people to also have one vote in the General Assembly.
Straight democracy is basically mob rule, majority is always right and the rights of the minority are irrelevant. That is not the system the United States was founded upon. Again, it's a federal republic, not a fascist system with all power centralized. Power is diffused. Who gives a rat's ass about comparing Kentucky to California? It's irrelevant.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:26 PM)
Who gives a rat's ass about comparing Kentucky to California?
Conservatives.
You miss the point that the EC is flawed and, to spite the majority, grants all the power to the minority.
The same people who support this are the people who lose their **** over gender-neutral bathrooms (which already exist) because .001% oF tHe PoPuLaTiOn.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:33 PM)
Currently the system favors Republicans. Down the line it may favor Democrats. The system can't be based on fluctuations at any given moment in history. Again, it's federal. In 50 years small states may favor Democrats. That's not the issue.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:16 PM)
The issue is disproportionate amounts of power being given to states whose interests are not reflective of the needs of the greater population. It doesn't matter which way they swing politically. Whether Republican, Democrat, or Pastafarian, two people in Wyoming should not have the voice of eight Californians.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:27 PM)
I would say that, for example, agricultural issues in a desolate state such as North Dakota, are just as or more important than traffic congestion in Los Angeles.
If you look at a population density map, the majority of the population is huddled on a relatively small area of land. The Electoral College also gives important geographic representation. It would be unwise to allow agricultural issues which affect the majority of the nation geographically, to be given a backseat to urban issues.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
MovieBROManCin2 — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:33 PM)
Reconciling the fact that you just compared an entire state to a city/county…why does one individuals vote count for more in the rural state as compared to the vote of the individual in a populated city?
Top notch gaslighting though -
DrakeStraw — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 07:05 PM)
Avatar Lives Matter …
… you just compared an entire state to a city/county …
How about I compare SoCal against New England? The six largest counties rank for rank are all bigger than the states of New England, either by population or area. That gives New England way to much political clout, IMO.
[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]
&
nbsp; -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 07:24 PM)
Gaslighting? Who are you now, Bongo?
Why is North Dakota as important as California? Because agricultural concerns are as important as urban renewal. Because the land mass and use of that land is important everywhere, whether the state is small and densely populated or large and desolate.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
MovieBROManCin2 — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 07:32 PM)
Why is North Dakota as important as California? Because agricultural concerns are as important as urban renewal.
California is the number one agricultural state… gaslight!
Besides the fact that what you posted is not an answer to the question I asked. It's actually a total deflection… gaslight!
Bingo Bango Bongo
-
-
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:39 PM)
The point has nothing to do with state's rights… this is about the elected officials in D.C. States can still individually decide how they want to handle taxes, what dog breeds they consider dangerous, what prison sentences to dole out, and etc. The point is that the centralized aspect of the government should be decided fairly by a popular vote of the entire population that it serves.
I think the UN is right in how it counts votes because we are completely separate countries. The states might be individual entities within the US, but we share a federal government, we share a military, we use the same currency, we proudly declare ourselves "one nation" (not "one nation when it's convenient for matters related to voting")
Again, states rights are still relevant. If a state is more left or right leaning, then they can base their state laws on that, but just because they have fewer people per sq/mi does not mean their votes get to count more when deciding who will represent the population of the country on the world stage and in federal matters that impact the population as a whole.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:27 PM)
States rights is a loaded word. The issue is really federalism.
And this only affects one vote for President. The House is still apportioned to give equal representation. But again, the U.S. Senate applies the same principle as the Electoral College, but even more skewed in favor of small states. If you want some revolutionary reform of the federal system, you have to do away with the Senate as well. In other words, chuck the whole system. Nobody wants that.
This all goes back to federalism. It's about a balance of power.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:36 PM)
I disagree. States rights is one of the primary reasons the EC is no longer serving a purpose other than maintaining an imbalance of power. When states have as much freedom as they do to decide most of their own fates, more representation from fewer people is overkill and, quite frankly, undemocratic.
As I wrote in another response to you (
https://www.filmboards.com/board/p/19841417/permalink/#p19841417
), no the Senate doesn't need to go away, it needs to be re-worked to more fairly represent the populations they serve. Perhaps one senator per state to legally represent, argue on the behalf of. and vote in emergency cases on their constituents' behalf, but when it's time to vote on normal matters that are not an emergency, the ballot boxes open back up and people from around the country get to decide.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
MovieBROManCin2 — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:01 PM)
States have rights which can't be overrode by the central government.
No they don't. Stop gaslighting.
It doesn't matter Kentucky versus California. That's irrelevant under a federal system. That's like saying in the U.N. it's unfair for the U.S. with 300 million people to have one vote in the General Assembly and for Ireland with 5 million people to also have one vote in the General Assembly.
Did you toss that word salad yourself?
Straight democracy is basically mob rule, majority is always right and the rights of the minority are irrelevant
.
No. The opinions of the minority are irrelevant…but that's the point of having a vote
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 