What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

2018 already started. Koch brother ads have started in Mass. against Elizabeth Warren.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Handyman said:
Agreed. The Dems should let the states destroy themselves. As I said before sooner or later they will come running when things get out of control. It is easy to rail against FEMA until tornadoes destroy Mississippi and they need federal help. North Dakota sure doesnt seem adverse to national emergencies when the Red River overflows.

Right now the Dems are running against the wind. So stop. If the people dont want help, dont help them. If North Carolina wants to keep losing money they will keep their State Houses as is. (I believe it is a GOP Supermajority which is why the law will stay) If Wisconsin wans to destroy their economy and have jobs and teachers leave in droves that is their prerogative. Minnesota will reap the rewards.

These people want State's Rights...and they are also the ones suckling the most at the Federal Teet. Well, give them what they want. Elections have consequences. And you know what is truly sad, the people suffering will probably reward Democrats for doing it.
Click to expand...

Its important to remember that state governments are more Republican than their constituencies as the election process is biased. Voting by district is the problem - it favors conservatives.

Minnesota Democrats got 49% of the vote for the state house of reps and the GOP got 50%. Yet Republicans ended up with a landslide 76 seats to 57 for the Dems. Minnesota Democrats got 56% of state senate vote and the GOP got 43%. Yet the GOP got 43 seats to the Dems 42.

Frankly the federal government (president, senate, house, scotus) is typically more conservative than the US electorate for the same election bias.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

5mn_Major said:
Its important to remember that state governments are more Republican than their constituencies as the election process is biased. Voting by district is the problem - it favors conservatives.

Minnesota Democrats got 49% of the vote for the state house of reps and the GOP got 50%. Yet Republicans ended up with a landslide 76 seats to 57 for the Dems. Minnesota Democrats got 56% of state senate vote and the GOP got 43%. Yet the GOP got 43 seats to the Dems 42.

Frankly the federal government (president, senate, house, scotus) is typically more conservative than the US electorate for the same election bias.
Click to expand...

How do you apportion Representatives/State Senators if not by district?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

ScoobyDoo said:
Districts aren't the problem it's the gerrymandering that's the problem.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is definitely an issue. But it goes far beyond that...just due to the nature of district voting. For example, I don't think many would say that state boundaries were gerrymandered.

Democratic senators got 54% of the vote and Republican senators got just 42% of the national vote. Yet Democrats ended up with just 46 seats and Republicans ended up with 52. The bias pattern goes on and on.

Armadillo said:
How do you apportion Representatives/State Senators if not by district?
Click to expand...

I was posing the problem. If you don't see the problem, then there's no chance of a solution.

Would just applying representatives to a true statewide popular vote be better? Hard to say. But I would bet a lot that in the case of Minnesota state...voters would place higher priority on picking a party rather than an individual. The current system goes counter to that - resulting in governments that don't represent the majority of their constituencies.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

5mn_Major said:
Gerrymandering is definitely an issue. But it goes far beyond that...just due to the nature of district voting. For example, I don't think many would say that state boundaries were gerrymandered.

Democratic senators got 54% of the vote and Republican senators got just 42% of the national vote. Yet Democrats ended up with just 46 seats and Republicans ended up with 52. The bias pattern goes on and on.

This is because 1) only 1/3 of the Senate is up for grabs in a given election, and 2) California's Senate race was between two Democrats. That's a pretty hefty D skew there.



I was posing the problem. If you don't see the problem, then there's no chance of a solution.

Would just applying representatives to a true statewide popular vote be better? Hard to say. But I would bet a lot that in the case of Minnesota state...voters would place higher priority on picking a party rather than an individual. The current system goes counter to that - resulting in governments that don't represent the majority of their constituencies.
Click to expand...

But then you open yourself up to the charge that the deep-blue cities (in this case MSP, Duluth, Rochester) would hold all the power in the Legislature, leaving rural and suburban voters out in the cold. This is why we're a representative republic and not a true democracy. Now if Minnesota wanted to apportion reps in this manner, there's nothing really stopping them, but I question the wisdom of doing so.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Armadillo said:
But then you open yourself up to the charge that the deep-blue cities (in this case MSP, Duluth, Rochester) would hold all the power in the Legislature, leaving rural and suburban voters out in the cold. This is why we're a representative republic and not a true democracy. Now if Minnesota wanted to apportion reps in this manner, there's nothing really stopping them, but I question the wisdom of doing so.
Click to expand...

Suburbia is split. But is it better to have a deep red outstate minority ruling over the rest of the state and against the broader will of the people?

While Dem governments still effectively support rural areas...there are questions of whether a rural, GOP government can effectively manage the Twin Cities economic engine.
 
Armadillo said:
How would this work in a future election?
Click to expand...
It would add additional members of Congress (likely just the House) in proportion to the percentage of votes that each party received.

In the House Republicans hold 241 seats out of 435 (55.4%) to 194 for the Democrats (44.5%). Yet Republicans only received 48.7% of the votes and Democrats received 47.9%. This process adds at-large seats to the House until the parties are represented proportionally to their vote totals.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Jimjamesak said:
It would add additional members of Congress (likely just the House) in proportion to the percentage of votes that each party received.

In the House Republicans hold 241 seats out of 435 (55.4%) to 194 for the Democrats (44.5%). Yet Republicans only received 48.7% of the votes and Democrats received 47.9%. This process adds at-large seats to the House until the parties are represented proportionally to their vote totals.
Click to expand...

Yes, and its is widespread (figured this out on my own a few days ago).
 
5mn_Major said:
Yes, and its is widespread (figured this out on my own a few days ago).
Click to expand...
I know it's used in Germany and New Zealand while the U.K. and Canada are considering it.

The main pro is that it would empower minor parties, if they get the 5% minimum.

The main con being it doesn't exactly jive with the whole "collection of states" model.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Handyman said:
Yeah I saw that.

Meanwhile White House is Tell The State Department If They Hate Their Job They Should Quit (cant remember if that was posted) Well that is one way to cut the budget I guess...
Click to expand...

I worked for a large corporation when a new CEO was hired in from the outside. A lot of folks working in that company believed that new CEO would be a complete culture clash.

That CEO came in and immediately started implementing what he told the board (and shareholders) he would do when he was interviewing for the CEO job. And, he told everyone in the company if they didn't enjoy working there they should save misery times two (them being miserable in the job; them being miserable at work and sharing it with coworkers) and just quit.

I'm sort of having deja vu right now, but at a governmental level.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Jimjamesak said:
It would add additional members of Congress (likely just the House) in proportion to the percentage of votes that each party received.

In the House Republicans hold 241 seats out of 435 (55.4%) to 194 for the Democrats (44.5%). Yet Republicans only received 48.7% of the votes and Democrats received 47.9%. This process adds at-large seats to the House until the parties are represented proportionally to their vote totals.
Click to expand...

< hand up >
Question: Who do those additional representatives represent? They weren't elected by a district per se, so who are they beholden to? Dare I posit "the party"? I'm not sure I like that. Representatives are supposed to represent people, not party, no?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Armadillo said:
This is gerrymandered?

http://minnesotabrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ShowImage.aspx_.gif
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. It's a work of art.

From earlier last year:
dxmnkd316 said:
The big problem is that side of the metro is basically a rich man's haven. It also includes a lot of rural area. Looking at it, it's almost perfectly gerrymandered to split up Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, and Coon Rapids. All are fairly large and ethnically diverse (relatively) cities. But it effectively includes the exceedingly rich and white cities of the southwest metro as a whole.

Edit: my god, it also has chunks of Wayzata, Edina, and Eden Prairie.

Maybe there isn't a good way to split up the suburban districts of the Cities. I have no idea. But it manages to pull in just enough of Brooklyn Park, Center, and CR to make me suspicious.
Click to expand...

Won't matter. If the new way to determine if partisan gerrymandering has occurred continues to pass through federal courts, it's all moot. It already declared Wisconsin had to redraw its proposed districts based on an algorithm.

Edit: nm. THis was for the US House. I don't doubt there's been gerrymandering in the state districts too. It's just a fact of life.
 
Last edited:
The Sicatoka said:
< hand up >
Question: Who do those additional representatives represent? They weren't elected by a district per se, so who are they beholden to? Dare I posit "the party"? I'm not sure I like that. Representatives are supposed to represent people, not party, no?
Click to expand...
The represent the people as whole based upon their voting preferences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top