What can we all do?

[jhmd2000]

The ACA is law.

SCOTUS approved it, too.

jhmd ignores SCOTUS and election results when convenient.

The exchange was about racial gerrymandering. It had nothing to do with the ACA. Ph knows that, but he wasn't having nearly fun reading the actual law and SCOTUS cases as he thought he would. One of us is attempting to ignore the three SCOTUS cases on point. Hint: it's not me.

Not to be missed is the fact that election results (like those for NC pubs in 2010) indeed have consequences, including the right to draw districts. That election had manifest consequences that one of us is attempting to ignore. Hint: it's not me.

 

[WFFaithful]

Did the Dems gerrymander districts? Yes. Did the Pubs gerrymander districts? Yes. Who benefited more from gerrymandering? Pubs.

 

[beatrix]

Really?

So based on this metric, there'd be no issue if the Republican vote total was at or above 50%? E.g., if there had been a strong national ticket... perhaps a Reagan-like incumbent... or a strong local candidate to close the 70ish/20ish gaps we experienced in the districts Dems won. Am I reading that right?

 

[jhmd2000]

Did the Dems gerrymander districts? Yes. Did the Pubs gerrymander districts? Yes. Who benefited more from gerrymandering? Pubs.

I've got a century and a half of one party rule that says otherwise. I know it's been a rough 18 months but what do you make of the last 150 years?

 

[deacdiggler]

That would just hand the Senate to Republican control and the House to Democrats. How is that better?

The congress would be split, yet the entire house and 1/3 of the senate would be people a) who haven't been a part of the shit we have now, and b) who realize that we would do it again if they fuck up. I am at the point where I will vote for an honest man that I disagree with over a crook who purports to share my ideas about what's best. And since clearly we can't tell the crooks from the good guys, I say we throw them all out and start fresh.

 

[Deacfreak07]

The congress would be split, yet the entire house and 1/3 of the senate would be people a) who haven't been a part of the shit we have now, and b) who realize that we would do it again if they fuck up. I am at the point where I will vote for an honest man that I disagree with over a crook who purports to share my ideas about what's best. And since clearly we can't tell the crooks from the good guys, I say we throw them all out and start fresh.

Most of the folks that started this are freshmen, right?

 

[jhmd2000]

Most of the folks that started this are freshmen, right?

Which met with predictable results...

 

[PhDeac]

I've got a century and a half of one party rule that says otherwise. I know it's been a rough 18 months but what do you make of the last 150 years?

Perhaps one party ruled because it's a democracy and more voters voted for that party.

Go back to what Faithful posted. When the composition of districts yields drastically different results than the popular vote, that is evidence of bias. If you understand that, then you'll understand that court cases don't provide any evidence of your point. And I'm not going to read a bunch of court cases about one district when the conversation is about an entire state.

 

[jhmd2000]

Perhaps one party ruled because it's a democracy and more voters voted for that party.

Go back to what Faithful posted. When the composition of districts yields drastically different results than the popular vote, that is evidence of bias. If you understand that, then you'll understand that court cases don't provide any evidence of your point. And I'm not going to read a bunch of court cases about one district when the conversation is about an entire state.

How can you say what they prove (or don't prove) when you admit you're not going to read them? if someone else wrote that, you'd crucify them. As you should, frankly.

 

[PhDeac]

No I wouldn't because I don't expect anybody to read court cases on a message board. I don't know why you board lawyers keep posting them, especially for lay people to read.

You told me what you think they say and that was enough to know that it wasn't germane to the argument at hand.

 

[jhmd2000]

No I wouldn't because I don't expect anybody to read court cases on a message board. I don't know why you board lawyers keep posting them, especially for lay people to read.

You told me what you think they say and that was enough to know that it wasn't germane to the argument at hand.

Then the argument veered dramatically without anyone else knowing it but you. I was responding to the assertion that the 12th was the worst gerrymandered district in the country, but I pointed out who was that most egregious offender ab initio. Then it turned into which party gerrymandered the most egregiously, and a poster stated that it was his opinion that it was the Pubs, post 2010. I pointed out that the Supreme Court of the United States intervened three times to say otherwise. You jumped in to say that their opinion didn't matter. I bet that is news to them, but okay.

You and I need to bury the hatchet. You're a know-it-all, I'm a jerk. Let's accept that about ourselves and each other, and try to do it a little less. It's my turn to walk away.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

While most of you would not agree with much of what he said, Mark Levin spelled out some ideas in his latest book. Term limits is one thing that would obviously help, IMO, but we can't expect those turkeys in DC to do that to themselves. Levin proposes amending the Constitution in the way spelled out for the states, thus bypassing the Congress altogether for the amendment process. 2/3rds of the state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention. Now I doubt they'd agree on a lot of things, much less all the proposals set forth by Levin, but term limits will help. Levin proposes a few other things that would go over like a lead balloon in here, but I think 3 that would help would be term limits for congress, term limits for SCOTUS, and even resorting back to appointment of Senators instead of direct election (the general reasoning here is that the Senators becomes more consumed with national interests rather than state interests when subject to direct elections. That's simplifying it greatly, as the book and his reasoning for all his proposals can get pretty in-depth, and I think it's less of an issue with term limits).

 

[RJKarl]

That's batshit crazy on so many levels. First of all we have term limits. It's called voting. Term limits would create enormous corruption. The only you could win would be to have tons of backing. As your term limit approaches, many would set themselves up for lucrative post-Congress careers with those they helped.

Rather appointing senators, how about a House of Lords?

As to constitutional conventions over and over is nuts. Skipping Congress for amendments puts the crazies in charge.

Levin is an extremist nutcase as are the ideas you propose here.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

12th district is 45% black and 89% urban and is shaped like a snake, effectively cutting out the "urban" city centers from the surrounding rural county mass districts which are <10% black and <15% urban. That's completely above board and non-racial because the supreme court hasn't declared it unconstitutional. Give me a fucking break.

 

[PhDeac]

Cronyism would be a huge issue with appointment of senators. Look at what happens when governors make interim appointments. One of the good things about the senate is the possibility that one Dem represents Dem interests in the state and one Pub represents Pub interest in the state if the voters so choose.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The vast majority of district 12 probably isn't 15 miles wide east to west, yet it's 100 miles+ north to south. I'm sure there is a reason it's shaped like that, but I just can't figure it out. I mean jhmd said it's not racial, so what could it be?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I don't know if jhmd lives at the beach or just keeps a 10 gallon bucket with him at all times but either way, it must be fucking tough to keep his head buried in the sand all the goddamn time.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Cronyism would be a huge issue with appointment of senators. Look at what happens when governors make interim appointments. One of the good things about the senate is the possibility that one Dem represents Dem interests in the state and one Pub represents Pub interest in the state if the voters so choose.

Cronyism is effectively what's in place now. Who gets the nominations for Senator? The bigwig politicians in the states. Same difference. One of the things that he added was a provision for their removal by their state legislatures. Anyway, the chapter on that particular subject was very interesting. I didn't agree with it initially, but came away mostly agreeing with Levin.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

That's batshit crazy on so many levels. First of all we have term limits. It's called voting. Term limits would create enormous corruption. The only you could win would be to have tons of backing. As your term limit approaches, many would set themselves up for lucrative post-Congress careers with those they helped.

Rather appointing senators, how about a House of Lords?

As to constitutional conventions over and over is nuts. Skipping Congress for amendments puts the crazies in charge.

Levin is an extremist nutcase as are the ideas you propose here.

Yes, that voting thing is working out really well when something like 96% of incumbents are reelected. I'm sure there's no corruption in what amounts to lifetime congressional appointments. And obviously none of them parlay that into lucrative lobbying positions. The whole point is to lessen the influence of lobbyists by not creating professional politicians.

I would go further. I would remove congressional pensions from the picture. You serve to serve, not to get a fat pension. 12 years is enough. Make the years in congress count toward a pension only as part of government service. Your 12 in congress can count toward your 30 years in government should you opt to make a career out of public service. Again, that reduces the urge to go find a lobbying job. There will also be a helluva lot more competition for lobbying jobs with so many more ex congressmen out there...who again would only have 12 years of experience at the most and not exactly the same amount of clout that veterans of Congress currently have.

Your assertion that skipping congress for amendments puts the crazies in charge is very humorous. Who the fuck is in charge right now, exactly?

 

[RJKarl]

Who's in charge? the batshit crazy people that you support are the problem.

As to "competition for lobbying jobs". it's not just that. companies would directly buy bills and contracts with big payday jobs.

The best thing we could is publicly finance all campaigns. Take all the outside money out of them.

As to not having "professional politicians". The only reason our economy didn't tank tonight is those "professional politicians" worked out a deal. Your TP and RW extremist heroes were perfectly happy with driving us over a cliff.