Tatsuma: A win win right here

I love both of those guys. I don't agree with either of them on a lot of things but I'm glad they're there to call bullshiat on the shenanigans that go on.

Tatsuma: A win win right here

Oh god we agree on something.

Gerrymandering is a perversion of democracy, and should be done away with altogether.

I don't think RON PAUL has the right answers, but I'm glad he asks the questions.

This. this is why we need an actual Tea Party, not the carcass the GOP.

Ron Paul will be fine. The primary goal of the Republicans redistricting Texas is to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, and also to dilute the influence of liberal Austin by cutting it up into as many different districts as possible.

I just realized that the background of the PITA doesn't match the background of the new redesign. That's hilarious.

log_level_utility: This. this is why we need an actual Tea Party, not the carcass the GOP.

I fully support this endeavor.

Tatsuma: A win win right here


Huh, they must not blindly support Israel.

*checks*

Yup.

FuturePastNow: I don't think RON PAUL has the right answers, but I'm glad he asks the questions.

Ron Paul doesn't ask any real questions. His entire political contribution consists of "Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to shiat on the poor?"

There ought to be a constitutional amendment requiring that all congressional districts are drawn by computer where the programming seeks to draw districts with equal populations without regard to any other factor. There is too much conflict of interest in state legislatures being able to influence the redistricting process.

Snarfangel: Gerrymandering is a perversion of democracy, and should be done away with altogether.

Yup. Run them all as state-wide at-large seats, and give voters only one vote. Choose the one you like the most. Won't make much difference in the smaller states that have only 1-3 reps, but larger states will almost guarantee some representation by minority viewpoints, which can only be a good thing. The Kucinich's and Pauls and other new ones would keep the heat on the rest.

raerae1980: Glad it's smaller, at least.

Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus.

MrPerfectSU: Ron Paul will be fine. The primary goal of the Republicans redistricting Texas is to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, and also to dilute the influence of liberal Austin by cutting it up into as many different districts as possible.

Yep. My district in Austin is my tiny sliver of the city, and then extends out to cover a huge swath of rural Texas. The other side of the district is over two hundred miles away. The city of Austin, for reasons that are unclear (read: perfectly clear), sits at the intersection of five congressional districts. No other city in the state is so divided.

OnmyojiOmn: FuturePastNow: I don't think RON PAUL has the right answers, but I'm glad he asks the questions.

Ron Paul doesn't ask any real questions. His entire political contribution consists of "Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to shiat on the poor?"

Don't forget "I don't understand what money is, so let's try this."

OnmyojiOmn: FuturePastNow: I don't think RON PAUL has the right answers, but I'm glad he asks the questions.

Ron Paul doesn't ask any real questions. His entire political contribution consists of "Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to shiat on the poor?"

RON PAUL asks a lot of questions that people don't want asked, and he does seem to practice what he preaches, at least most of the time.

Of course, what he preaches is at best unworkable and at worst insane, but he's at least he's actually pretty consistent.

(I would be happier if the entire Congressional delegation from Texas were Rons Paul though.)

You mean we won't have a "libertarian" who supports banning abortion, federal court review and lots of other things meant to preserve liberty anymore?

Damn, that hurts.

Of course the gerrymander those who ask questions. This is why voting will never work for the little man.

Vote write in and stop playing their games.

No! I love Ron Paul! I don't think his policies are workable, but I feel he is less full of shiat than almost every other Republican in Washington. Same goes for his son.

TheShavingofOccam123: You mean we won't have a "libertarian" who supports banning abortion, federal court review and lots of other things meant to preserve liberty anymore?

Damn, that hurts.

He's not really a libertarian - he's a States Rightist. He thinks that the states should have the absolute power to do whatever they please, with the exception of the powers surrendered by them to the federal government. To be fair, that was the original view of the drafters of the Constitution. For example, several states had official state churches after the signing of the Constitution. That was considered okay; the Constitution only banned the federal government from establishing a religion. It wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that that sort of thing was forbidden to the states as well.

In principle I agree with what Ron Paul is trying to do. I just think his interpretations of things like the Fourteenth are woefully wrong. And I do think he's a hypocrite with regards to the income tax thing - the Constitution specifically allows the feds to levy an income tax. He says he only wants the feds to do what the Constitution says they can, but then wants to abolish the income tax. Can't have it both ways. And the Fourteenth ensures a uniformity of civil rights across the country (why the Supremes have relied on the Commerce Clause in the past to uphold things like the Civil Rights Act I'll never understand; the Fourteenth seems like a much more obvious support to me).

Kirk's_Toupee: Of course the gerrymander those who ask questions.

In their defense, Ron Paul asks some of the stupidest questions that have ever been asked.

tomWright: Yup. Run them all as state-wide at-large seats, and give voters only one vote. Choose the one you like the most. Won't make much difference in the smaller states that have only 1-3 reps, but larger states will almost guarantee some representation by minority viewpoints, which can only be a good thing. The Kucinich's and Pauls and other new ones would keep the heat on the rest.

That's a terrible idea.

How would you decide which seat each person got? It wouldn't really matter about their local constituents, would it? They'd have to run across the entire state every two years, which means instead of listening to the problems of a small area (while running constantly) they'd have to tour all over the state (while running constantly.)

Your local congressman may be an annoying, crazy jackass, but he also needs your vote. If you go to him with a problem, a real problem, they often listen and help. Because they can't afford you and ten of your friends to not want to vote for them.

Lord Dimwit: MrPerfectSU: Ron Paul will be fine. The primary goal of the Republicans redistricting Texas is to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, and also to dilute the influence of liberal Austin by cutting it up into as many different districts as possible.

Yep. My district in Austin is my tiny sliver of the city, and then extends out to cover a huge swath of rural Texas. The other side of the district is over two hundred miles away. The city of Austin, for reasons that are unclear (read: perfectly clear), sits at the intersection of five congressional districts. No other city in the state is so divided.

I have often wondered what the history is of legal challenges to the entire idea of single member districts and gerrymandering. So far as I recall, the Constitution does not require single member districts, and state-wide at-large elections were the norm in many states i the past, pre-WWII. Of course, I am too lazy to look it up, so maybe it is in there in some way. Even if it was re-interpreted into it, sort of like a "Four legs good, two legs better!" thing.

Single-member districts and the ability to gerrymander gives any majority party the ability to effectively disenfranchise minority parties, which seems antithetical to the idea of a Republic.

But then, bullies with any savvy always do like mob rule.

Kirk's_Toupee: Of course the gerrymander those who ask questions. This is why voting will never work for the little man.

Vote write in and stop playing their games.

Voting works when it's not tied to something as simple and easily corrupted as geographic districts. That sort of thing made sense centuries ago when most issues were local and people in a given area tended to have the same beliefs and needs. Now, divisions are much more along ideological grounds for national issues (local issues like road construction and stuff should of course remain local and geographic, since those in the area will be the ones most affected). At the state and federal level I think something like a party-list or single-transferable vote for a flat field of candidates makes much more sense.

Lord Dimwit: To be fair, that was the original view of the drafters of the Constitution. anti-federalist block led by derpmeister Patrick Henry

FTFY

tomWright: Lord Dimwit: MrPerfectSU: Ron Paul will be fine. The primary goal of the Republicans redistricting Texas is to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, and also to dilute the influence of liberal Austin by cutting it up into as many different districts as possible.

Yep. My district in Austin is my tiny sliver of the city, and then extends out to cover a huge swath of rural Texas. The other side of the district is over two hundred miles away. The city of Austin, for reasons that are unclear (read: perfectly clear), sits at the intersection of five congressional districts. No other city in the state is so divided.

I have often wondered what the history is of legal challenges to the entire idea of single member districts and gerrymandering. So far as I recall, the Constitution does not require single member districts, and state-wide at-large elections were the norm in many states i the past, pre-WWII. Of course, I am too lazy to look it up, so maybe it is in there in some way. Even if it was re-interpreted into it, sort of like a "Four legs good, two legs better!" thing.

Single-member districts and the ability to gerrymander gives any majority party the ability to effectively disenfranchise minority parties, which seems antithetical to the idea of a Republic.

But then, bullies with any savvy always do like mob rule.

The Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandering is constitutional so long as it's for political purposes only - in other words, if the Republicans say they're gerrymandering to ensure a Republican majority, that's okay. It's only illegal if the primary purpose of the gerrymandering is to disenfranchise racial groups or something along those lines. See Link (new window)

Lord Dimwit: MrPerfectSU: Ron Paul will be fine. The primary goal of the Republicans redistricting Texas is to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, and also to dilute the influence of liberal Austin by cutting it up into as many different districts as possible.

Yep. My district in Austin is my tiny sliver of the city, and then extends out to cover a huge swath of rural Texas. The other side of the district is over two hundred miles away. The city of Austin, for reasons that are unclear (read: perfectly clear), sits at the intersection of five congressional districts. No other city in the state is so divided.

When I moved from Houston to Austin I kept the same Congressman. WTF?

/farking GOP.

Problem: pseudo-3rd party is futzing with your party's "guaranteed" wins in solid red states
Solution: Off with it's head.

Citizen Paul has less access to gov't resources than Congressmen Paul.

The Republicrats maintain the status quo of the warfare/welfare state. No boat rockers allowed.

Long live the FED! Long live the FED! 4 more wars! 4 more wars!

Guidette Frankentits: Solution: Off with it's head.

I'm 99% sure I put "its."
I also noticed that a vast majority of my submissions have gross misspellings in them as well.
Is Fark intentionally adding misspellings?

Dalrint: tomWright: Yup. Run them all as state-wide at-large seats, and give voters only one vote. Choose the one you like the most. Won't make much difference in the smaller states that have only 1-3 reps, but larger states will almost guarantee some representation by minority viewpoints, which can only be a good thing. The Kucinich's and Pauls and other new ones would keep the heat on the rest.

That's a terrible idea.

How would you decide which seat each person got? It wouldn't really matter about their local constituents, would it? They'd have to run across the entire state every two years, which means instead of listening to the problems of a small area (while running constantly) they'd have to tour all over the state (while running constantly.)

Your local congressman may be an annoying, crazy jackass, but he also needs your vote. If you go to him with a problem, a real problem, they often listen and help. Because they can't afford you and ten of your friends to not want to vote for them.

They would represent the people of the state with the same point of view they hold. In other words a true representative. Not just the appointed-by-committee over-lord the local majority party runs for the office.

The more choices the voters have, the harder it is to manipulate an election. But manipulating elections is the entire idea behind single member districts and ballot 'access' laws.

Just look at the history of the House of Representatives (new window). We had a much livelier, and I think much healthier, political system before WWII. There were even one or two Congresses where minority parties, when added together, were a majority over the Dem or Rep party.

How much quicker would the advances of the Civil Rights have happened if minority parties had been able to get a true voice on the Floor of the House? After all, that is how Abolition came about, when the Republicans came to power. They were the last 'third party' to actually succeed.

Lord Dimwit: tomWright: Lord Dimwit: MrPerfectSU: Ron Paul will be fine. The primary goal of the Republicans redistricting Texas is to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, and also to dilute the influence of liberal Austin by cutting it up into as many different districts as possible.

Yep. My district in Austin is my tiny sliver of the city, and then extends out to cover a huge swath of rural Texas. The other side of the district is over two hundred miles away. The city of Austin, for reasons that are unclear (read: perfectly clear), sits at the intersection of five congressional districts. No other city in the state is so divided.

I have often wondered what the history is of legal challenges to the entire idea of single member districts and gerrymandering. So far as I recall, the Constitution does not require single member districts, and state-wide at-large elections were the norm in many states i the past, pre-WWII. Of course, I am too lazy to look it up, so maybe it is in there in some way. Even if it was re-interpreted into it, sort of like a "Four legs good, two legs better!" thing.

Single-member districts and the ability to gerrymander gives any majority party the ability to effectively disenfranchise minority parties, which seems antithetical to the idea of a Republic.

But then, bullies with any savvy always do like mob rule.

The Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandering is constitutional so long as it's for political purposes only - in other words, if the Republicans say they're gerrymandering to ensure a Republican majority, that's okay. It's only illegal if the primary purpose of the gerrymandering is to disenfranchise racial groups or something along those lines. See Link (new window)

Yeah, I kind of half-remembered that gerrymandering was ruled 'OK'. But I am wondering about single member districts as well. Unless there is a Constitutional mandate covering it, I wonder if a case can be made that the effects are so bad that it disenfranchises people in a way that is Unconstitutional.

Whish I knew enough to research that or build the argument.

Guidette Frankentits: I'm 99% sure I put "its."

It has been gerrymandered.

So basically TFA is saying that African-Americans and Hispanics hate Ron Paul.

Is this even the case?

Not sure about Ron, but I'm pretty sure Dennis will find a way to console himself...



/That's half-hawt...

Dalrint: Your local congressman may be an annoying, crazy jackass, but he also needs your vote.

Which they almost never earn. What he's proposing is called "proportional representation." On the one hand it means I get to vote for the guy that really represents me. On the other, it can split the vote, and maintain the power of the establishment.

In the case of the United States, it means the Democratic vote would most certainly be split between leftist groups like Socialist and Greens and centrists like Democrats -- leading to hard right Republican hegemony.


In parliamentary systems this is somewhat mitigated as the ruling parties needing to form coalitions. As things currently are, however, it would just mean we'd turn into some kind of frightening republican totalitarianism.

dehehn: So basically TFA is saying that African-Americans and Hispanics hate Ron Paul.

Ron and Rand have been accused of having white supremacist connections and if Ron Paul's policies were instituted they would disproportionately have a negative effect on those two demographics.

Not that the current Republican Party's policies don't, just that his would in a different fashion.

FuturePastNow: I don't think RON PAUL has the right answers, but I'm glad he asks the questions.

This, and I'd probably vote for him for Congress, had I the opportunity, for that reason.

Not so much for President, though.