Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 11:54 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Microsoft Corporation Message Board

  • lordbalzy_the_holy lordbalzy_the_holy Jan 25, 2013 2:53 PM Flag

    Minority Of Rightwingers Will Rule In This Country Through Gerrymandering And Electorial Rule Changes

    3 million more votes were cast for Dem Congressmen than Rethugs but the Rethugs hold the majority in the House.

    The question is why? The answer is gerrrymandering of the districts. The Congressional District boundaries have been contorted into tortured twisted paradies of normal district to maintain the Rethug majority.

    Now, the Rethugs want to change the Electorial College rules by allowing one E.C. vote per District. Most rural districts are close elections where the Rethugs win by a small majority. The Urban Districts are heavily Democratic. The overall majority by population in each state is Democratic. Majority in each state rules, right?

    The Rethugs want to change that rule so that a minortiy Rethug population controls the government. Minority of the population rules, is what the Rethugs want.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Kinda makes you want to change the idea of one man, one vote. You should have to take an IQ test to be eligible to vote. That would eliminate a lot of braindead liberals.

    • Hey, Dodo Bird! We went over this earlier! If Electors in Electoral College were assigned based on proportional voting by district, rather than winner take all, then Barack Obama would probably still still have won because he got more votes. He got about 2% more votes than Romney. He won a landslide in the Electoral College because of the winner take all policy used in most states to choose Electors.

      Republicans should be careful what they do: in 2000, Bush won because of the winner take all policy. The popular vote was very close. Gore had a marginal win of the popular vote, but Bush won in the Electoral College. That's why there was weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Democrats.

      If proportional voting was used, then the Electoral College vote would more closly follow the popular vote.

      There could not be 1 elector for each election district because there are TWO EXTRA electors in each state (one for each senator.) But the selected Electors could be assigned proportionally. Maine & Nebraska already do that.

    • So why are you complaining?
      They, the “rightwingers”, built this country, gave you all your liberties and freedoms and now feed you for free.
      Plus they pay for birth control and aids medication.
      Take them away and then what?
      Don't see anyone leaving. No one's going back to Kenya, China, Mexico or Cuba.
      Everyone remains 's here, sucking on the great American rightwinger tit.

    • If you want to do away with the gerrymandering problem, then increase the number of Representatives to reflect the changes in population since maybe 1911 when the magic number of 435 House members was first decided. We would have more like 1469 House members and courts could insist that each election district be reasonably geometrical (rectangular, except maybe for river boundaries & island boundaries.) Each election district coulld be assembled of contigious census tracks, which are roughly rectangular. The result would be more districts, more Representatives, and more representation in congress. Here is what I said before:

      ***

      (7) A more interesting fact is that Congress set the total number of House Members at 435 back in 1911 when our population was less than a third what it is now. Back then the ratio of House members to population was 1 in about 211,000. Over the last century, every American has been more and more disenfranchised by the fact that the ratio is now 1 in about 711,000. Thus our representation in the House is only 29.7% what it was in 1911. If we had the same representation today we would have more like 1469 members in the House of Representatives. Which would favor much more local representation.
      (8) This would impact the Presidential Election since the Electors in the Electoral College is the number of Senators plus the number of House members. If we ALSO adopted a proportional voting system, results in the Electoral College would much more closely track the popular vote. And presidential campaign tactics & strategy would change drastically! Each candidate would have to campaign all across the nation. Every election district might be a "battle ground district!" Just think: Al Gore might have won in 2000!

      PS: Note that election districts would be about 1/3rd their current size and gerrymandering would be less a problem.

 
MSFT
40.40+0.65(+1.64%)Apr 16 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.