Democrat politicians make me puke

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
That sht needs to stop too. Districts should be drawn logically, not politically.
That will also be hard, because in addition to keeping the same population - and populations shift and move - you have to deal with demographics. Race, party. If you pack a group in ONE district - someone will cry foul. If you do the OPPOSITE - distribute Dems or blacks so they have NO majority anywhere - someone will cry foul.

Admittedly districts OUGHT to follow logical boundaries - like county and town lines - but populations don’t always cooperate. OR they follow “identity” - Southern Maryland doesn’t have much shared identity with PG.

I’ve seen maps created with algorithms that have rational shapes and satisfy the basic - rules. No one wants to adopt them.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
you have to deal with demographics.

That's not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be population, period. If people want to group and segregate, that's their right. But it's not supposed to be that each district has x-thesepeople and x-thosepeople because you can't "distribute" humans who have a right to choose where they live. The only reason the legislatures do that is to dilute voters that aren't of their party and that's what we're supposed to be putting a stop to.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
That's not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be population, period.
Still won't work. Fact is - IF you want to dilute the black vote - you rewrite districts so they are a minority in every district. You deliberately shape the district so the candidate they want - never has a chance. We want to believe that race doesn't matter - but it's not reality.

ON THE OTHER HAND - you can also take a state like, say, South Carolina - and find a way to concentrate the black vote into a very few districts - and ensure that all of their vote goes to ONE representative.

This - has happened. WE'VE seen this, in Maryland, to erase REPUBLICAN districts, by drawing the maps for Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore to include very Democrat geographies.

So - you really can't say ah, don't worry it's just population - and quietly dominate state politics by telling yourself that.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Lets get crazy and have 10 voting districts, In district 1, have all folks that have a zip code that ends in 0, district 2, all folks with a zip code ending in 1...and so on.
 

Sneakers

Just sneakin' around....
Lets get crazy and have 10 voting districts, In district 1, have all folks that have a zip code that ends in 0, district 2, all folks with a zip code ending in 1...and so on.
🤔 Hmmm.... Close, but maybe use the last digit of the street address. Pretty random mix.
 

blacklabman

Well-Known Member
I was always told since "electors" are identified in the constitution that the only way to remove the EC would be a constitutional amendment. Makes sense.

As for California, it's lopsided but not "greater than two thirds", it was 58% for the Democrat (Harris) not > 66%.
I think I stand corrected. Three quarters of the states, not popular vote.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Still won't work. Fact is - IF you want to dilute the black vote - you rewrite districts so they are a minority in every district. You deliberately shape the district so the candidate they want - never has a chance. We want to believe that race doesn't matter - but it's not reality.

ON THE OTHER HAND - you can also take a state like, say, South Carolina - and find a way to concentrate the black vote into a very few districts - and ensure that all of their vote goes to ONE representative.

This - has happened. WE'VE seen this, in Maryland, to erase REPUBLICAN districts, by drawing the maps for Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore to include very Democrat geographies.

So - you really can't say ah, don't worry it's just population - and quietly dominate state politics by telling yourself that.
So, I guess you are in the camp of being okay with states saying "all our votes go to the winner of the state popular vote". And then there are several states wanting their electoral votes to go to the national popular vote winner. You okay with that too?

As apportionment establishes the number of seats in the House and which state gets how many, shouldn't the electoral vote align with those allocations?
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Nothing bluer than Md. but no President ever campaigns here.
1734457393909.png

Well,..there was that unpleasantness in 1972...
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
So, I guess you are in the camp of being okay with states saying "all our votes go to the winner of the state popular vote". And then there are several states wanting their electoral votes to go to the national popular vote winner. You okay with that too?

As apportionment establishes the number of seats in the House and which state gets how many, shouldn't the electoral vote align with those allocations?
I've got no problem with the way it works NOW. The status quo is fine with me.

I am also saying that doing it the Nebraska way - assigning electors according to wins in congressional districts - will lead to gerrymandering districts so as to distort the outcome. So if anyone thinks it's - more fair - bear in mind, there's the likelihood that will be circumvented.

AND - there's no agreed upon way the redistricting SHOULD work, besides population distribution.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
BOTH of those are diametrically opposed - if you don't do one, you will do the other.
It's lose lose.

They should be drawing the district lines with regard to population, with no regard for race or anything other than a live human body. One of us is misunderstanding the other.

Also illegal aliens shouldn't be counted. They aren't citizens and shouldn't be considered residents with any impact on congressional or electoral representation. Just because Democrats want more representation than their political opponents doesn't mean they should get it.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I've got no problem with the way it works NOW. The status quo is fine with me.
The way it works now is electoral suppression. As a republic that should not be tolerated. Our representation is divided by district and our electoral input should be likewise.
I am also saying that doing it the Nebraska way - assigning electors according to wins in congressional districts - will lead to gerrymandering districts so as to distort the outcome. So if anyone thinks it's - more fair - bear in mind, there's the likelihood that will be circumvented.

AND - there's no agreed upon way the redistricting SHOULD work, besides population distribution.
Gerrymandering already exists, always has been attempted and it always will be challenged when it is obvious that there is something malevolent as to the intent.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Also illegal aliens shouldn't be counted. They aren't citizens and shouldn't be considered residents with any impact on congressional or electoral representation. Just because Democrats want more representation than their political opponents doesn't mean they should get it.
^THIS^
California gets 50 electoral votes. They have a population of about 39 million "residents" of which 10.6 million are non-citizens. They shouldn't be rewarded by giving them extra electoral votes.
 

jrt_ms1995

Well-Known Member
The only demographic government should be aware of, or be allowed to be aware of, for any individual would consist of one from the left column below and one from the right.

ADULT​
CITIZEN​
NON-ADULT​
NON-CITIZEN​
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
They should be drawing the district lines with regard to population, with no regard for race or anything other than a live human body. One of us is misunderstanding the other.
Should. But there’s not much incentive NOT to. And population is not enough.

For example - Southern Maryland makes sense as a single district by itself - except it just doesn’t have enough people. You need about 3/4 million to make it even. So wherr do you “add” them? From Anne Arundel? Or PG? If the first, well, it might vote in a Republican. OR you could just plop Calvert in with Northern PG and St Mary’s in with Charles and Southern PG.

You can SAY it’s just population but you can do it several ways. Some will be “unfair “ to someone.

Now - I’ve seen maps created where districts have clean edges that don’t correspond to known borders but resemble near geometric shapes. Those seem the most fair because the districts have “normal” shapes. Guarantee someone won’t like it.

Some states with very large black populations HAVE succeeded in minimizing the black vote - because the blacks living in the state live almost entirely within one area. It’s not hard to draw lines around those regions - they’ll always elect a black Democrat - and the rest won’t. What’s “fair”?
 

LtownTaxpayer

Well-Known Member
Still won't work. Fact is - IF you want to dilute the black vote - you rewrite districts so they are a minority in every district. You deliberately shape the district so the candidate they want - never has a chance. We want to believe that race doesn't matter - but it's not reality.

ON THE OTHER HAND - you can also take a state like, say, South Carolina - and find a way to concentrate the black vote into a very few districts - and ensure that all of their vote goes to ONE representative.

This - has happened. WE'VE seen this, in Maryland, to erase REPUBLICAN districts, by drawing the maps for Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore to include very Democrat geographies.

So - you really can't say ah, don't worry it's just population - and quietly dominate state politics by telling yourself that.
Including PG county in multiple congressional districts has had that effect for sure. There is one congressional district in Maryland that cannot be driven across unless you go through a different district to get to the other side.
 
Top