How could gerrymandering exist if it was done by popular vote?
It’s not complicated, but I’ll give you a pass since you’re not an American and don’t understand our government’s structure.
Gerrymandering is confined within individual states. It has implications on Congressional districts, but for a presidential election all but two states are winner-takes-all, meaning that it doesn’t matter how you draw the districts within the state because an overall state popular vote determines who wins its electoral votes.
Gerrymandering can only happen after a Census takes place because its a perversion of the Census process. Congressional districts are redrawn / realigned after the Census in order to ensure representation of the population for the House of Representatives. Each state gets one Representative minimum with the rest being divided up based on population for a total of 435. Some states grow, others shrink so these lines need to be redrawn every so often. The people responsible for redrawing those lines are States government, meaning whomever controls a States government immediately after a Census has a chance to redraw the map lines.
Clever drawing allows a government to spread certain populations around, which can have dramatically bad effects. They can get so bad that the Courts have stepped in and said you can't disenfranchise a minority this way. On the flip side there are several liberal states with large conservative populations, those states draw the lines such that those conservatives can rarely vote in the same district.
I am proposing that there are no state elected people that result in a President being elected based upon a majority of their allegiance though.
I can see how that could result in a majority of Democrats being elected but a Republican president, but isn't something like that already an issue (e.g. "lower house" whatever the *** that is) in a similar context?
We already have many instances in our history where a president is elected that belongs to the opposite party of the majorities in Congress. It’s not really an “issue”, though. Checks and balances on the parties are a good thing, at least until we hit that magical moment where politicians in general are no longer corrupt, self-serving hypocrites.
Gerrymandering can only happen after a Census takes place because its a perversion of the Census process. Congressional districts are redrawn / realigned after the Census in order to ensure representation of the population for the House of Representatives. Each state gets one Representative minimum with the rest being divided up based on population for a total of 435. Some states grow, others shrink so these lines need to be redrawn every so often. The people responsible for redrawing those lines are States government, meaning whomever controls a States government immediately after a Census has a chance to redraw the map lines.
Clever drawing allows a government to spread certain populations around, which can have dramatically bad effects. They can get so bad that the Courts have stepped in and said you can't disenfranchise a minority this way. On the flip side there are several liberal states with large conservative populations, those states draw the lines such that those conservatives can rarely vote in the same district.
Well put...and this shows why Gerrymandering is bad. The ones creating the jurisdictions after each census can manipulate the boundaries to favor one party over the other. This is bad for both sides of the political spectrum.
On a topic related note, in a completely expected move, McConnell had to change his rules resolution to 3 days for opening arguments, instead of 2. He has said he was going to mirror Clinton's trial, but in his very first move he tried to shorten the opening to 2 days instead of 4. That didn't work.
I am proposing that there are no state elected people that result in a President being elected based upon a majority of their allegiance though.
I can see how that could result in a majority of Democrats being elected but a Republican president, but isn't something like that already an issue (e.g. "lower house" whatever the *** that is) in a similar context?
We already have many instances in our history where a president is elected that belongs to the opposite party of the majorities in Congress. It’s not really an “issue”, though. Checks and balances on the parties are a good thing, at least until we hit that magical moment where politicians in general are no longer corrupt, self-serving hypocrites.
Gotta love those foreigners trying to influence the 2020 US elections, without even knowing how the system works. It's like the concept of separation of powers is completely alien to them.
I am proposing that there are no state elected people that result in a President being elected based upon a majority of their allegiance though.
I can see how that could result in a majority of Democrats being elected but a Republican president, but isn't something like that already an issue (e.g. "lower house" whatever the *** that is) in a similar context?
We already have many instances in our history where a president is elected that belongs to the opposite party of the majorities in Congress. It’s not really an “issue”, though. Checks and balances on the parties are a good thing, at least until we hit that magical moment where politicians in general are no longer corrupt, self-serving hypocrites.
Yeah that's working brilliantly now, right? People getting sent to jail and spending millions of taxpayer's money on trials. Not an issue at all.
Exactly, it’s not really an issue. It hardly affects the public because none of those bozos can implement anything without bipartisan approval and the economy is strong regardless.
I am proposing that there are no state elected people that result in a President being elected based upon a majority of their allegiance though.
I can see how that could result in a majority of Democrats being elected but a Republican president, but isn't something like that already an issue (e.g. "lower house" whatever the *** that is) in a similar context?
We already have many instances in our history where a president is elected that belongs to the opposite party of the majorities in Congress. It’s not really an “issue”, though. Checks and balances on the parties are a good thing, at least until we hit that magical moment where politicians in general are no longer corrupt, self-serving hypocrites.
Gotta love those foreigners trying to influence the 2020 US elections, without even knowing how the system works. It's like the concept of separation of powers is completely alien to them.
Gotta love people who are scared of more democratic forms of democracy because it suits them. I don't give a ***who gets to play leader in your dystopia but if you're going to be "democratic" then you should be as democratic as possible. In an ideal democracy everything would go to a straight vote of the people and the technology exists to do this now.
This doesn’t even make any sense. Who’s to say that a pure democracy is the “ideal” form of government? There are pros and cons to every system. It has nothing to do with being “scared” and more to do with the fact that we found a system that works for us, so why fix it?
Also, lol at your “dystopia” comment. Life in America is great. You want see a real dystopia? You’ve got plenty on your side of the world to visit.
I am proposing that there are no state elected people that result in a President being elected based upon a majority of their allegiance though.
I can see how that could result in a majority of Democrats being elected but a Republican president, but isn't something like that already an issue (e.g. "lower house" whatever the *** that is) in a similar context?
We already have many instances in our history where a president is elected that belongs to the opposite party of the majorities in Congress. It’s not really an “issue”, though. Checks and balances on the parties are a good thing, at least until we hit that magical moment where politicians in general are no longer corrupt, self-serving hypocrites.
Gotta love those foreigners trying to influence the 2020 US elections, without even knowing how the system works. It's like the concept of separation of powers is completely alien to them.
Gotta love people who are scared of more democratic forms of democracy because it suits them. I don't give a ***who gets to play leader in your dystopia but if you're going to be "democratic" then you should be as democratic as possible. In an ideal democracy everything would go to a straight vote of the people and the technology exists to do this now.
America should have a Queen that has no political power but has a title. And us taxpayers should support it. Now that is a government !
I am proposing that there are no state elected people that result in a President being elected based upon a majority of their allegiance though.
I can see how that could result in a majority of Democrats being elected but a Republican president, but isn't something like that already an issue (e.g. "lower house" whatever the *** that is) in a similar context?
We already have many instances in our history where a president is elected that belongs to the opposite party of the majorities in Congress. It’s not really an “issue”, though. Checks and balances on the parties are a good thing, at least until we hit that magical moment where politicians in general are no longer corrupt, self-serving hypocrites.
Gotta love those foreigners trying to influence the 2020 US elections, without even knowing how the system works. It's like the concept of separation of powers is completely alien to them.
Gotta love people who are scared of more democratic forms of democracy because it suits them. I don't give a ***who gets to play leader in your dystopia but if you're going to be "democratic" then you should be as democratic as possible. In an ideal democracy everything would go to a straight vote of the people and the technology exists to do this now.
This doesn’t even make any sense. Who’s to say that a pure democracy is the “ideal” form of government? There are pros and cons to every system. It has nothing to do with being “scared” and more to do with the fact that we found a system that works for us, so why fix it?
Also, lol at your “dystopia” comment. Life in America is great. You want see a real dystopia? You’ve got plenty on your side of the world to visit.
Pure democracy would be a failure. Now semi pure democracy could work or something.
