Redistricting Move Warns House GOP

Damocles said:
The parties tend to use their knowledge to select areas that make up districts that are "sure things" for them and try to use that same power to reduce such districts for the other party while they are in power.

What Watermark is trying for is a system that has no "sure things" because the districts would be selected more randomly.
Click to expand...

Then what's the point in winning elections? Why not just have the Federal government manage our voting to so that it's fair and randomly distributed? We can have elections where it will always be 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans.

Naaa what Water's suggesting is not only naive, it doesn't make political sense.
 
Mottleydude said:
Actually it is a bad idea. A very bad idea. It rather defeats the purpose of even having an election.
Click to expand...
I don't think it does. It would make elections actually mean something and more challenging a better forge for selecting the best leader rather than the most slavish party hack available. People get elected so they can make laws, gerrymandering districts is just a plus bennie.
 
I am confused by Mottleys devotion to gerrmandering. I didn't think anyone could take it as a good thing.

In the UK and Ireland they have independent commissions set up that fairly divide districts. The party that wins the most votes usually wins the election. This is unlike in the US, where in 1996 the Republicans got fewer votes in the house but won the election. The house is supposed to be the body that is closest to the people. How can we tolerate an ideological position of the minority controlling it? I know you could make an argument for the senate or the electoral college, but not for the house.

To prevent a series of landslide elections (which would happen if EVERY district were drawn competitively), we could have 1:1:1 or 2:1:1 ratio of competitive to liberal/conservative districts. Then the party (or ideological position) that was most popular at the time would win, rather than the party that just happened to draw the best districts. How does this defeat the point of having elections? In my view, it simply makes elections more meaningful.

I also think we should also draw a few districts favorable to minor parties. I despise the two party system.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
Then what's the point in winning elections? Why not just have the Federal government manage our voting to so that it's fair and randomly distributed? We can have elections where it will always be 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans.

Naaa what Water's suggesting is not only naive, it doesn't make political sense.
Click to expand...

Massive, massive misunderstanding of the nature of apportionment and elections.

Stick to biology and arguing with Darla.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top