What is the purpose of government?

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't follow. What is often 50/50. Congress?

I don't think the Founders would think the law is twisted. After all, the Electoral College is set up so that the electoral votes of all the states in the minority do not count. A person can win the presidency by winning only 11 states.

Also, many of the Founders held political office when the first (labeled) gerrymander occurred in 1812 when a MA district was drawn to give an advantage to the Democrat-Republicans over the Federalists.

It was criticized then just as we criticize it today. “The horrid Monster of which this drawing is a correct representation, appeared in the County of Essex, during the last session of the Legislature,” read the caption below the cartoon. “All believe it is a creature of infernal origin, both from its aspect and from the circumstance of its birth…The monster shall be denominated a Gerry-mander.”

I also vote Libertarian for president. One reason is because a certain percent of votes is necessary for a party to automatically qualify for the ballot in the next election. I don't feel like I am "wasting" my vote since my one vote will not determine the outcome in a heavily Republican state.

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way" is often squeamish about using power such as gerrymandering. Republicans started a strategy to control the states in 1980 and became dominant by 2010. Now, they use that control to dominate the redistricting process.

As some posters remind us, "elections have consequences."

We want our party to gain power, we are just afraid to use that power and we especially do not want the other party to use their power. One party told us we should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice in a presidential election year until they had the opportunity to do so. Rather than just admitting they had the power to make that appointment, they both tried to use moral or ethical explanations.

The nation and, as a consequence, Congress is about 50/50 for this entire century.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If gerrymandering to alter the vote is wrong.

You point out both the problem and why you are part of it: Dominating the US with One Party, One Leader, One Nation ideology.

 

[BidenPresident]

You think violence by some people is more acceptable than violence from others? That seems upside down and hypocritical.

It is lame to try to make justifications for violence.

You write the same things as every other right winger defending Trump. Rather sad you don't know it is obvious.

 

[Flash]

The nation and, as a consequence, Congress is about 50/50 for this entire century.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If gerrymandering to alter the vote is wrong.

You point out both the problem and why you are part of it: Dominating the US with One Party, One Leader, One Nation ideology.

Nowhere did I suggest the U. S. should be dominated by one party. As you say, the country is about 50/50, so neither party is dominating. If you want both parties and minorities to be represented in proportion to their numbers in a state, gerrymandering has to occur or you would never be able to accomplish it.

Who said gerrymandering is wrong? Certainly not the Supreme Court. In the 1960s they did make some rulings requiring equal population per district, for state senates to be based on population, and required states to redistrict in order to maintain equal population. But they never said partisan gerrymandering was unconstitutional since the function was given to state legislatures. Complaints about redistricting (often inaccurately called gerrymandering) usually come from the party at the disadvantage. They would not be complaining if they were drawing the lines; and, they would not be any fairer.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nowhere did I suggest the U. S. should be dominated by one party. As you say, the country is about 50/50, so neither party is dominating. If you want both parties and minorities to be represented in proportion to their numbers in a state, gerrymandering has to occur or you would never be able to accomplish it.

Who said gerrymandering is wrong? Certainly not the Supreme Court. In the 1960s they did make some rulings requiring equal population per district, for state senates to be based on population, and required states to redistrict in order to maintain equal population. But they never said partisan gerrymandering was unconstitutional since the function was given to state legislatures. Complaints about redistricting (often inaccurately called gerrymandering) usually come from the party at the disadvantage. They would not be complaining if they were drawing the lines; and, they would not be any fairer.

Then why not have a bipartisan/neutral third party draw the lines?

I'm saying gerrymandering to alter votes and assert dominance is wrong SCOTUS also said Jeff Bezos has billions of votes while you and I only have our one. LOL

 

[Flash]

You write the same things as every other right winger defending Trump. Rather sad you don't know it is obvious.

What does that have to do with justifying violence based on race?

You fail to recognize the obvious. I have never defended Trump. I have explained the law which you refuse to recognize. Proving incitement or insurrection is very difficult without proving intent, conspiracy, and advance planning. Because your hatred wants to imprison Trump you are willing to ignore the rule of law.

You go by the erroneous assumption that it is ok to interpret the law to achieve your partisan prejudices. You are willing to ignore the law if you like the results just as you are willing to approve violence if you are sympathetic with the cause.

You are a binary thinker and have to divide everybody into black and white. If I shot Trump and took his tie because I liked it, you would accuse me of being a Trump supporter.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Did Democrats plan the violent insurrection on the US Capitol? No. Quit lying.

well yes....a couple of times.......once using bombs......I believe only guns were involved at the other......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

wow, you condemn those crazy negroes. how white of you

a pity you have a race filter on violence.......but expected, given that you're a worthless idiot.....

 

[saltydancin]

The purpose of government is to protect citizens against the illegitimate use of force...

As if that government practice in this Christian Nation; where their national religion of an Islam medical pseudoscience fabricated virgin Mary misnomer some 600 +years AD for an immaculate Jesus the Christ son of Allah conception under color of law to protect themselves with reasoning the use of force by Federal Lynching enforcement & US Fascist Masochists Christiananality pedophilia Klues Klucks duh Klans fabricated immaculate crime conceptions are granted standing as "one nation under God with equal justice under law" with spacetime anomalies in a supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court of suicidal thieving National Archives purchased US Constitutions super ego arsonists.

 

[Flash]

Then why not have a bipartisan/neutral third party draw the lines?

I'm saying gerrymandering to alter votes and assert dominance is wrong SCOTUS also said Jeff Bezos has billions of votes while you and I only have our one. LOL

I don't have a problem with that. States have the power to create redistricting commissions and some have done so through initiative and referendum. From what little I have read the results have often been to protect incumbents.

Let me ask you a hypothetical since I'm not sure of your solution.

Assume a state has four House seats and has 1/4 black population. (1) If you draw four (square or somewhat uniform shapes) there is no district with a black majority.

Blacks are centered in one urban area and are located on both sides of the city. (2) To create a black majority you must connect the two sides of the city with a narrow strip connecting the two black areas.

Which solution is preferable? Clearly (1) is less representative but avoids any gerrymandering. (2) requires serious gerrymandering but is more representative.

Your choice?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't have a problem with that. States have the power to create redistricting commissions and some have done so through initiative and referendum. From what little I have read the results have often been to protect incumbents.

Let me ask you a hypothetical since I'm not sure of your solution.

Assume a state has four House seats and has 1/4 black population. (1) If you draw four (square or somewhat uniform shapes) there is no district with a black majority.

Blacks are centered in one urban area and are located on both sides of the city. (2) To create a black majority you must connect the two sides of the city with a narrow strip connecting the two black areas.

Which solution is preferable? Clearly (1) is less representative but avoids any gerrymandering. (2) requires serious gerrymandering but is more representative.

Your choice?

First, I wouldn't draw the lines based on race; there's no such thing as "race" genetically, just culture. It'd be like dividing the area up between Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Better, IMO, to divide it economically which is easier than race.

Second, it's obviously a dilemma and I wouldn't choose either option because 1) race doesn't exist and 2) drawing salamanders is too easy to abuse as we are seeing in Texas.

Lastly, the main idea is to distribute the four representatives in a manner that represents the best interests of all the people. IMO, this is mainly economic both personal income and allocation of state/local funds for local projects such as bridges and main roads.

 

[Damocles]

As if that government practice in this Christian Nation; where their national religion of an Islam medical pseudoscience fabricated virgin Mary misnomer some 600 +years AD for an immaculate Jesus the Christ son of Allah conception under color of law to protect themselves with reasoning the use of force by Federal Lynching enforcement & US Fascist Masochists Christiananality pedophilia Klues Klucks duh Klans fabricated immaculate crime conceptions are granted standing as "one nation under God with equal justice under law" with spacetime anomalies in a supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court of suicidal thieving National Archives purchased US Constitutions super ego arsonists.

Whoever said that the US government falls within the definition I provided? In order to make a more perfect Union we gave folks the ability to get there and a path towards it, however major parties tend to fail in driving the government towards what I consider to be the correct goal.

 

[Flash]

First, I wouldn't draw the lines based on race; there's no such thing as "race" genetically, just culture. It'd be like dividing the area up between Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Better, IMO, to divide it economically which is easier than race.

Second, it's obviously a dilemma and I wouldn't choose either option because 1) race doesn't exist and 2) drawing salamanders is too easy to abuse as we are seeing in Texas.

Lastly, the main idea is to distribute the four representatives in a manner that represents the best interests of all the people. IMO, this is mainly economic both personal income and allocation of state/local funds for local projects such as bridges and main roads.

First, we would have to amend the Constitution to eliminate any consideration of race in anything governmental. Now, it prohibits discrimination based on race and states can have their maps thrown out if they ignore racial (and ethnic) representation.

Second, representing the best interest of all the people is an impossible and subjective concept. It would require more extreme gerrymandering because economic groups are more intermixed in the state's population than racial groups. It sounds like Marxist class warfare.

Blacks and Hispanics certainly think it is in the best interest of all the people if they get representation.

Race has identifiable physical characteristics but culture does not. We can identify physical differences in different races, skeletal remains can identify a person's race, and DNA can identify different races. Although DNA differences are small, they can identify race; after all, we share 99% of DNA with chimpanzees.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

First, we would have to amend the Constitution to eliminate any consideration of race in anything governmental. Now, it prohibits discrimination based on race and states can have their maps thrown out if they ignore racial (and ethnic) representation.

Second, representing the best interest of all the people is an impossible and subjective concept. It would require more extreme gerrymandering because economic groups are more intermixed in the state's population than racial groups. It sounds like Marxist class warfare.

Blacks and Hispanics certainly think it is in the best interest of all the people if they get representation.

Race has identifiable physical characteristics but culture does not. We can identify physical differences in different races, skeletal remains can identify a person's race, and DNA can identify different races. Although DNA differences are small, they can identify race; after all, we share 99% of DNA with chimpanzees.

Anything involving an Amendment would be impossible in today's toxic environment. People smarter than me would have to figure it out and/or monitor it. Reagan was a model of a President who admitted he didn't know everything but was smart enough to surround himself with people who did. GHW Bush did the same. After that it went downhill and hitting bottom under the last administration. I'm not really sure if the Biden administration or the Democrats have what it takes to lift us off the bottom. The Republicans are zero help.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Anything involving an Amendment would be impossible in today's toxic environment. People smarter than me would have to figure it out and/or monitor it. Reagan was a model of a President who admitted he didn't know everything but was smart enough to surround himself with people who did. GHW Bush did the same. After that it went downhill and hitting bottom under the last administration. I'm not really sure if the Biden administration or the Democrats have what it takes to lift us off the bottom. The Republicans are zero help.

and....technocracy.....
the hits just keep coming with you.

 

[Into the Night]

You write the same things as every other right winger defending Trump. Rather sad you don't know it is obvious.

So every war, every conflict, you are blaming on Trump????!?

 

[Into the Night]

I don't have a problem with that. States have the power to create redistricting commissions and some have done so through initiative and referendum. From what little I have read the results have often been to protect incumbents.

Let me ask you a hypothetical since I'm not sure of your solution.

Assume a state has four House seats and has 1/4 black population. (1) If you draw four (square or somewhat uniform shapes) there is no district with a black majority.

Blacks are centered in one urban area and are located on both sides of the city. (2) To create a black majority you must connect the two sides of the city with a narrow strip connecting the two black areas.

Which solution is preferable? Clearly (1) is less representative but avoids any gerrymandering. (2) requires serious gerrymandering but is more representative.

Your choice?

Divisional error fallacy. Racism. It doesn't matter the color of any of the population.

 

[Into the Night]

First, we would have to amend the Constitution to eliminate any consideration of race in anything governmental.

Already there. See the 14th and 15th amendments.

Now, it prohibits discrimination based on race and states can have their maps thrown out if they ignore racial (and ethnic) representation.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You can't compel racism to prevent racism.

Second, representing the best interest of all the people is an impossible and subjective concept. It would require more extreme gerrymandering because economic groups are more intermixed in the state's population than racial groups. It sounds like Marxist class warfare.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You cannot divide people into races and refer to some of them as 'all the people'.

Blacks and Hispanics certainly think it is in the best interest of all the people if they get representation.

Racism.

Race has identifiable physical characteristics but culture does not. We can identify physical differences in different races, skeletal remains can identify a person's race, and DNA can identify different races. Although DNA differences are small, they can identify race; after all, we share 99% of DNA with chimpanzees.

So we are all racially chimpanzees and that's what causes racism???

 

[Into the Night]

Anything involving an Amendment would be impossible in today's toxic environment. People smarter than me would have to figure it out and/or monitor it. Reagan was a model of a President who admitted he didn't know everything but was smart enough to surround himself with people who did. GHW Bush did the same. After that it went downhill and hitting bottom under the last administration. I'm not really sure if the Biden administration or the Democrats have what it takes to lift us off the bottom. The Republicans are zero help.

No amendment necessary. Define 'The Bottom'.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No amendment necessary. Define 'The Bottom'.

Corrupt and ineffectual. When We, the People, settle for politicians who are corrupt or support corrupt policies, then we only have ourselves to blame.

Settling for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil. That's not working, IMO.

 

[saltydancin]

Whoever said that the US government falls within the definition I provided? In order to make a more perfect Union we gave folks the ability to get there and a path towards it, however major parties tend to fail in driving the government towards what I consider to be the correct goal.

To infer the US government in order to form a more perfect union for their Christian Nation Islamidiotocracy doesn't need to be said since it's little more than business as usual implying protect, serve & defend their Islam fabricated medical pseudoscience virgin Mary human reproduction albeit over 600 + years afterwards of an immaculate Jesus the Christ son of Allah conception; where the Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom which brought 9/11 to the USA some 40 years after their assassination of JFK just as their US Fascist Masochists fabricated death threats misnomers some months later & their Fuhrer's Brainwashing Inquisition diatribe "no one steals & burns US Constitutions in this country" while stealing & burning a photocopy of National Archives receipts which in all probability had been stolen & burned over the previous 5 years with old glory, old testament, Declaration of Independence , Israel flag, absentee voting ballots for 24 ongoing US Constitution arsons which seems to fall within the Christiananality pedophilia tautology asserted definition.