Virginia now a blue state...

[Jarod]

The Super Rich did not do anything to me and I don't dislike them, the system that gives them unfair advantages in a generational way, has made it harder for a person like me to get ahead than it was for many of my less motivated and less skilled friends who are super rich.

 

[iolo]

Worth pointing out that the 1% who own 40% of everything in America are now stealing so much that the ordinary people don't have enough to keep the crazy system functioning as the caste society becomes total.

 

[Jarod]

It does not bother me so much that the 1% own 40%+, what bothers me is that their families have owned it for many generations, and those who work much harder and contribute so much more to our society own so much less.

 

[cawacko]

Nonsense. The Dems are just as much to blame for giving themselves 'locks' for the House as well. Both parties have rigged the states that they could in order to all but guarantee a win for themselves.

The Dems getting more votes could easily be skewed by winning those rigged Dem sits by larger majorities and then losing the closer elections for seats that could go either way. It is patently ignorant to look at total votes and pretend that Dems should somehow have won more seats. Their problem is that they stacked their 'safe' seats TOO well. Giving them overwhelming numbers for some seats and leaving them scrambling for others.

Throw in the rules from the voters right acts which create the strongly minority districts with the intention of helping to get more minority reps in Congress but dilutes the Democratic vote across the states.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

more Americans wanted a democratic congressman than wanted republican ones. fact.

You are a one trick pony... too embarrassed to admit the above is irrelevant? We don't assign seats by the totals from all districts. There would be no point in having districts if we did that. All the above says is that Dems won their safe seats by really big margins. Wow... amazing. But completely irrelevant to how our system of government works. FACT.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They should, but they wont. They will simply descend into a deeper abyss until the take a step forward toward liberalism. Its what this Republican civil war is all about, how long it will last is the only question and the answer to how long the Democrats will dominate national politics.

That's not true at all. I was an active establishment Republican and I saw first hand how the far right wing of the party co-opted the party.

When estabishment, pro-business and center right moderates are willing to fight as hard and as long and willing to shout down opposition for as long as it takes to get their way, then the Republican party will migrate back towards the center and political compromise.

Say what you want to about the right wing socially conservative base of the party. They may only represent a minority of Republicans but they are the most motivated activist in American politics.

Eventually the other coalitions of the Repulbican party will have to fight fire with fire to prevent their party from becoming a permanent minority. The decline at the national level is obvious and it's begining to manifest it'self at the State level.

 

[Jarod]

That's not true at all. I was an active establishment Republican and I saw first hand how the far right wing of the party co-opted the party.

When estabishment, pro-business and center right moderates are willing to fight as hard and as long and willing to shout down opposition for as long as it takes to get their way, then the Republican party will migrate back towards the center and political compromise.

Say what you want to about the right wing socially conservative base of the party. They may only represent a minority of Republicans but they are the most motivated activist in American politics.

Eventually the other coalitions of the Repulbican party will have to fight fire with fire to prevent their party from becoming a permanent minority. The decline at the national level is obvious and it's begining to manifest it'self at the State level.

That's basically the better explanation of what I said. As long as the Wacks in the party hold out, the Republicans will descend into the abyss, once the Moderates get fed up, the party will lurch forward and return to being a contender.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nonsense. The Dems are just as much to blame for giving themselves 'locks' for the House as well. Both parties have rigged the states that they could in order to all but guarantee a win for themselves.

The Dems getting more votes could easily be skewed by winning those rigged Dem sits by larger majorities and then losing the closer elections for seats that could go either way. It is patently ignorant to look at total votes and pretend that Dems should somehow have won more seats. Their problem is that they stacked their 'safe' seats TOO well. Giving them overwhelming numbers for some seats and leaving them scrambling for others.

That's a fair analysis. Gerrymandering is a sword that cuts both ways.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

more Americans wanted a democratic congressman than wanted republican ones. fact.

That may be true but the fact is, more Republicans were elected.

That can change. As SF correctly pointed out. It was the Dems who mostly lost in close elections for house seats. They only need to pick up around 20 seats and that's in the realm of possibility in those close districts. Particularly if you continue to see more obstructionism and an inability to compromise to get things done by the GOP. They could easily lose those seats and if that happens by 2018, particularly at State level elections, than Dems would hold the gerrymandering trump card in their favor come the next census. That's not just whistling Dixie. If the national vote continues to clearly favor Dems, as it has the last few election cycles, than it's a distinct possibility.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You are a one trick pony... too embarrassed to admit the above is irrelevant? We don't assign seats by the totals from all districts. There would be no point in having districts if we did that. All the above says is that Dems won their safe seats by really big margins. Wow... amazing. But completely irrelevant to how our system of government works. FACT.

That's true. Though if I was a Republican party leader and saw that I was losing the national vote consistantly by those margins I would be deeply concerned. At some point in time if those numbers continue to grow than inertia alone will work against the GOP...but that's a purely numbers game.

 

[iolo]

It does not bother me so much that the 1% own 40%+, what bothers me is that their families have owned it for many generations, and those who work much harder and contribute so much more to our society own so much less.

All the evidence says it is getting worse and that real wages haven't gone up since God knows when.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's basically the better explanation of what I said. As long as the Wacks in the party hold out, the Republicans will descend into the abyss, once the Moderates get fed up, the party will lurch forward and return to being a contender.

I think you miss my part of my point. Yes, you're correct. A lot of moderates like me just simply got shouted down and fed up and tired of it all and just said the hell with it! I'm outta here. The social conservative base is motivated and willing to fight and fight hard. Harder than I was willing too. I don't think that will continue for ever. The Pro-Business and corporate stake holders in the GOP have to much invested in the GOP to let the grass roots socially conservative activist to continue to dominate the party. The problem is, they have a very motivated and determined opponent within the GOP.

That's essentially why I left the Republican party. I was involved at the local level and I was fed up and tired to death of getting shouted down by Social Conservatives who were willing to do that all night long and well into the next day to get their way. It was no longer fun and since I don't believe in social conservatism I no longer wanted to play.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

All the evidence says it is getting worse and that real wages haven't gone up since God knows when.

One only has to study the history of income inequality to understand what the consequences will be if it continues to grow. If social conservatives were as motivated to fight for their fair share of the economic pie as they are for their social ideals, we wouldn't even be discussing income inequality. We'd be doing something about it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's true. Though if I was a Republican party leader and saw that I was losing the national vote consistantly by those margins I would be deeply concerned. At some point in time if those numbers continue to grow than inertia alone will work against the GOP...but that's a purely numbers game.

I don't disagree with that. I would also be concerned IF it was because they were losing more independent voters in those Dem safe districts etc... If they are just getting nailed by large margins in heavily Dem districts by Dems... then not so much.

As stated before, I think we need to end the safe seat bullshit for both parties. That in itself would eliminate the extreme right and left from winning seats (or at least very many of them)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't disagree with that. I would also be concerned IF it was because they were losing more independent voters in those Dem safe districts etc... If they are just getting nailed by large margins in heavily Dem districts by Dems... then not so much.

As stated before, I think we need to end the safe seat bullshit for both parties. That in itself would eliminate the extreme right and left from winning seats (or at least very many of them)

Runoff elections for house seats would do that IMHO. The two primary candidates with the top two vote totals would run in the general election for each party. The general election would be winner takes all. That is the candidate who recieves the most votes wins.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Runoff elections for house seats would do that IMHO. The two primary candidates with the top two vote totals would run in the general election for each party. The general election would be winner takes all. That is the candidate who recieves the most votes wins.

Perhaps... but I think you then end up with someone winning with 26-35% of the total vote. I think the easier course would be for the states to redraw district lines with right angles only (unless up against a state line)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Perhaps... but I think you then end up with someone winning with 26-35% of the total vote. I think the easier course would be for the states to redraw district lines with right angles only (unless up against a state line)

You could arrange it so that if a no candidate wins a majority of votes in the first round of voting you can have a second round of voting consisting of the two candidates with the highest vote totals. The advantage of this approach is that you get a more representative slate of candidates for the general election and the candidate must win office by a majority of votes. Down side is that in the cases where another runoff is required takes more time and costs more. IMHO the extra time and cost are not prohibitive and are outweighed by the advantages.

Either way the problem is you would have to get the residents of a State to vote for such a procedure and that's unlikely. We tried ammending the State Constitution in Ohio to create a non-partisan destricting committee, which was an intriguing idea, but the voters shot it down. Both parties were vehemently opposed to the idea...which means it was probably a good idea.

 

[Jarod]

I like the idea of States having more limits on gerrymandering, the 90 degree angle rule is compelling but it would still allow for a substantial amount of gerrymandering because of the various sizes of districts. Its the best idea I know of currently.

One could also program a computer to figure it out mathematically without a political bias, but I don't know how well that would work.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I like the idea of States having more limits on gerrymandering, the 90 degree angle rule is compelling but it would still allow for a substantial amount of gerrymandering because of the various sizes of districts. Its the best idea I know of currently.

One could also program a computer to figure it out mathematically without a political bias, but I don't know how well that would work.

Both are good ideas...I'll add to your idea what Ohio tried, a nonpartisan redistricting commision elected by the voters. Again, to do any of these requires those States to change their State Constitution. Not an easy task.

 

[Jarod]

Both are good ideas...I'll add to your idea what Ohio tried, a nonpartisan redistricting commision elected by the voters. Again, to do any of these requires those States to change their State Constitution. Not an easy task.

I would think that the "nonpartisan redistricting commission elected by the voters" would be anything but nonpartisan.