• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Where is ncsports? Stop hiding

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
I realize you are sad, but stop hiding and make arrangements to pay your bet.
 
RJ don't be so insensitive. ncsports could very well have been institutionalized after the election. The results could have sent him over the edge.
 
olddke said:
RJ don't be so insensitive. ncsports could very well have been institutionalized after the election. The results could have sent him over the edge.
Click to expand...

He might be celebrating Pubs locking the House down..
 
bobknightfan said:
Speaking of that, I saw earlier where John Boehner said that the House "had a mandate not to raise taxes on anyone". That got me to thinking...and this was my conclusion: You can't have a "mandate" in either Senate or House elections.....because the only person whom is being voted on in the entire country is the president. Thus, only the president can recieve a "mandate". Senate candidates are only being voted on by voters in one state.....and House candidates by only 100K-200K or whatever in one small district! Furthermore, these elections are distorted because they are not done in a "one person, one vote"....particularly in the Senate. For example, California has two senators representing more than 37 million people, while Wyoming also has two senators, representing 500K+ people. Where is the fairness in that? House districts are less distorted, but they, too, are not a "one person, one vote" process. I haven't calculated the numbers (there is a link to a chart with them for each state below)....but I would lay good odds that, overall, the districts that elected Republican representatives Tuesday average fewer people than the districts that elected Democratic representatives. By taking advantage of this federalism, the Republicans....who have stronger support in the more scarcely populated states in the south & midwestern plains....have been able to maintain representation in congress that is greater than their proportion of the total population in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts. I failed Civics and all that (short bus kid as you've noted more than a few times) but that's the system the smart guys set up... and unlike some of my ideological peers, I think it's working for the most part as intended. Seems to keep us somewhat between the lines as we lurch left and right down the road.
 
bobknightfan said:
Speaking of that, I saw earlier where John Boehner said that the House "had a mandate not to raise taxes on anyone". That got me to thinking...and this was my conclusion: You can't have a "mandate" in either Senate or House elections.....because the only person whom is being voted on in the entire country is the president. Thus, only the president can recieve a "mandate". Senate candidates are only being voted on by voters in one state.....and House candidates by only 100K-200K or whatever in one small district! Furthermore, these elections are distorted because they are not done in a "one person, one vote"....particularly in the Senate. For example, California has two senators representing more than 37 million people, while Wyoming also has two senators, representing 500K+ people. Where is the fairness in that? House districts are less distorted, but they, too, are not a "one person, one vote" process. I haven't calculated the numbers (there is a link to a chart with them for each state below)....but I would lay good odds that, overall, the districts that elected Republican representatives Tuesday average fewer people than the districts that elected Democratic representatives. By taking advantage of this federalism, the Republicans....who have stronger support in the more scarcely populated states in the south & midwestern plains....have been able to maintain representation in congress that is greater than their proportion of the total population in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Click to expand...

Nobody has a mandate. House, Senate, or President.
 
individual callout thread. ban.
 
bobknightfan said:
Speaking of that, I saw earlier where John Boehner said that the House "had a mandate not to raise taxes on anyone". That got me to thinking...and this was my conclusion: You can't have a "mandate" in either Senate or House elections.....because the only person whom is being voted on in the entire country is the president. Thus, only the president can recieve a "mandate". Senate candidates are only being voted on by voters in one state.....and House candidates by only 100K-200K or whatever in one small district! Furthermore, these elections are distorted because they are not done in a "one person, one vote"....particularly in the Senate. For example, California has two senators representing more than 37 million people, while Wyoming also has two senators, representing 500K+ people. Where is the fairness in that? House districts are less distorted, but they, too, are not a "one person, one vote" process. I haven't calculated the numbers (there is a link to a chart with them for each state below)....but I would lay good odds that, overall, the districts that elected Republican representatives Tuesday average fewer people than the districts that elected Democratic representatives. By taking advantage of this federalism, the Republicans....who have stronger support in the more scarcely populated states in the south & midwestern plains....have been able to maintain representation in congress that is greater than their proportion of the total population in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Click to expand...

So your position would be that if all house members in one cycle were elected from one party, that would not make a mandate? How is that not a mandate?

Also, congressional districts are proportional by design. The only way a district could have materially fewer voters is if the population of the entire state was materially less than the number apportioned for each district. There just aren't enough of these for you to be complaining about. Plus, they include Vermont.

As for the Senate, of course it is not proportional. That was the idea. At least on this front, Federalism isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
 
Gerrymandering won the House for the Pubs. Dems had about a 1/2 million more total house votes.
 
Doesn't ncsports = vtwhat ? He's all over the game thread.
 
For all intents and purposes, the house republicans lost the popular vote.
 
Do you believe the Dems who controlled North Carolina's legislature for the last 150 years didn't gerrymander that district (and frankly, every other one)?
 
How did trying to find a guy who is welching on a bet devolve into a thread about gerrymandering?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top