If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The Supreme Court needs to shoot down Wisconsin's attempts at gerrymandering, as failing to do so would somehow make Wisconsin even worse   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, supreme court, George W. Bush, Democratic Party, Republican Party, partisan gerrymandering focus, Supreme Court of the United States, unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, high-profile Republican politicians  
•       •       •

916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2017 at 11:11 AM (36 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-13 09:07:43 AM  
From a better article: "Judges who heard Whitford found 2-1 last year that a 2011 district map drawn by Republicans for Wisconsin's state legislature was made specifically to disadvantage Democrats.

Despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, Republicans won 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly that year."

This is a true crisis in our democracy. Here's hoping SCOTUS does the right thing.
 
2017-09-13 09:59:38 AM  
Finally!  Those voters who live in that twenty foot wide by three hundred miles long district will get a say in things...
 
2017-09-13 10:12:04 AM  
s.yimg.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 10:37:52 AM  

ginandbacon: From a better article: "Judges who heard Whitford found 2-1 last year that a 2011 district map drawn by Republicans for Wisconsin's state legislature was made specifically to disadvantage Democrats.

Despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, Republicans won 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly that year."

This is a true crisis in our democracy. Here's hoping SCOTUS does the right thing.


yeah right. they just gave Texas the greenlight to continue with their rigged maps for the foreseeable future. Don't expect them to come to democracy's defense.
 
2017-09-13 10:43:03 AM  
American political institutions have a lot of "brakes" on the plebian voter's exercise of power.

The Electoral College
The federal Senate
The federal and most state court systems
The federal and state constitutions
Representative not direct dmocracy
To name only a few.

The court really ought to consider those realities before letting slide a gerrymandering process that essentially turns the last institutions directly controlled by majorities of voters into another "controlled democracy" vehicle for minorities to control or stifle government.
 
2017-09-13 11:13:00 AM  

ginandbacon: From a better article: "Judges who heard Whitford found 2-1 last year that a 2011 district map drawn by Republicans for Wisconsin's state legislature was made specifically to disadvantage Democrats.

Despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, Republicans won 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly that year."

This is a true crisis in our democracy. Here's hoping SCOTUS does the right thing.


They did not do it in Texas.  I figure Wisconsin has no chance.
 
2017-09-13 11:14:46 AM  
Waukesha county can only have 130% voter turnout for so long before people start to notice.
 
2017-09-13 11:15:54 AM  
When is it time for pitchforks? Seriously, this shiat is getting to be too much to come back from. If only somehow we could teach young, dumb, poor republicans that they are getting screwed by their own representatives....Isn't it pretty obvious?

Anti-corporate greed and pro-education does not have to be a partisan issue (to us plebes).
 
2017-09-13 11:16:50 AM  
It's not about making Wisconsin worse, it's about setting a precedent for the other 49 states to make them worse. This would be basically legalizing voter disenfranchisement on a national scale with very few options for recourse for the common voter.
 
2017-09-13 11:16:54 AM  

Hobodeluxe: ginandbacon: From a better article: "Judges who heard Whitford found 2-1 last year that a 2011 district map drawn by Republicans for Wisconsin's state legislature was made specifically to disadvantage Democrats.

Despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, Republicans won 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly that year."

This is a true crisis in our democracy. Here's hoping SCOTUS does the right thing.

yeah right. they just gave Texas the greenlight to continue with their rigged maps for the foreseeable future. Don't expect them to come to democracy's defense.


In order to stop this trend, we need to be able to elect people against it.

Which is why they're making sure even if we can vote after all the voter suppression methods, it is drowned out.

It's a catch 22 for Democrats.
 
2017-09-13 11:17:07 AM  
Everybody knows about Wississippi.
 
2017-09-13 11:21:18 AM  

deanis: When is it time for pitchforks? Seriously, this shiat is getting to be too much to come back from. If only somehow we could teach young, dumb, poor republicans that they are getting screwed by their own representatives....Isn't it pretty obvious?

Anti-corporate greed and pro-education does not have to be a partisan issue (to us plebes).


Peaceful protest was attempted. It led to being mowed down by someone in a car and the group responsible given a wink wink nod by the president himself.

You bring pitchforks, they will escalate severely. Only do this if you want to die a pointless death that will change nothing.
 
2017-09-13 11:26:15 AM  
I'm from central Wisconsin. I don't see a bit of difference between Wisconsin and Kentucky right now.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 11:28:02 AM  
FTFA:

"...high-profile Republican politicians - including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich - stand shoulder to shoulder with Democrats to report from the "political front lines" on the destructive effects of gerrymandering..."

McCain and Kasich are Republicans In Name Only.
 
2017-09-13 11:29:03 AM  

fernt: FTFA:

"...high-profile Republican politicians - including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich - stand shoulder to shoulder with Democrats to report from the "political front lines" on the destructive effects of gerrymandering..."

McCain and Kasich are Republicans In Name Only.


Party above democracy, eh?
 
2017-09-13 11:29:30 AM  
Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.
 
2017-09-13 11:32:32 AM  
I'm not terribly familiar with the Texas case, but the question before the court is twofold:

One, is partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional?

Two, how can a district map be recognized as gerrymandered for partisan purposes?

The ultimate answer will be determined, as always, by Kennedy and whether or not he accepts the "efficiency gap" test.
 
2017-09-13 11:33:27 AM  

LoveToSpoog: I'm from central Wisconsin. I don't see a bit of difference between Wisconsin and Kentucky right now.

[img.fark.net image 850x478]


Right now?  Wow, winter came early.
 
2017-09-13 11:34:32 AM  

Pichu0102: deanis: When is it time for pitchforks? Seriously, this shiat is getting to be too much to come back from. If only somehow we could teach young, dumb, poor republicans that they are getting screwed by their own representatives....Isn't it pretty obvious?

Anti-corporate greed and pro-education does not have to be a partisan issue (to us plebes).

Peaceful protest was attempted. It led to being mowed down by someone in a car and the group responsible given a wink wink nod by the president himself.

You bring pitchforks, they will escalate severely. Only do this if you want to die a pointless death that will change nothing.


With each day that goes by and each shiat peice of legislation that either gets ignored or passed by this administration/congress (there's plenty of dem blame to go around too) we are getting further away from anything resembling a society that can climb out of the hole we're digging.

Are there any other options? I'm not calling for a civil war or violence per se, but what do we do? Wait until 2018 or 2020? We could be in a farking nuclear war by then. Or recovering from one.

I'm passionate about change for the better of all americans, but I don't ever see it happening with the current political system.
 
2017-09-13 11:36:03 AM  
Is there a good generic rule to apply? No more than 6 corners, a minimum number of concave shapes, and not exceeding 2:1 w:h? Something like that?
 
2017-09-13 11:36:48 AM  

fernt: FTFA:

"...high-profile Republican politicians - including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich - stand shoulder to shoulder with Democrats to report from the "political front lines" on the destructive effects of gerrymandering..."

McCain and Kasich are Republicans In Name Only.


Just like you!

Seriously, drop the act. It's boring.
 
2017-09-13 11:36:57 AM  
Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.
 
2017-09-13 11:37:54 AM  

deanis: Pichu0102: deanis: When is it time for pitchforks? Seriously, this shiat is getting to be too much to come back from. If only somehow we could teach young, dumb, poor republicans that they are getting screwed by their own representatives....Isn't it pretty obvious?

Anti-corporate greed and pro-education does not have to be a partisan issue (to us plebes).

Peaceful protest was attempted. It led to being mowed down by someone in a car and the group responsible given a wink wink nod by the president himself.

You bring pitchforks, they will escalate severely. Only do this if you want to die a pointless death that will change nothing.

With each day that goes by and each shiat peice of legislation that either gets ignored or passed by this administration/congress (there's plenty of dem blame to go around too) we are getting further away from anything resembling a society that can climb out of the hole we're digging.

Are there any other options? I'm not calling for a civil war or violence per se, but what do we do? Wait until 2018 or 2020? We could be in a farking nuclear war by then. Or recovering from one.

I'm passionate about change for the better of all americans, but I don't ever see it happening with the current political system.


A vote ballot is the peaceful equivalent of a bullet. History tells us you can have one or the other. If you remove the peaceful option, the populace will reach for the other one.
 
2017-09-13 11:38:05 AM  
Gerrymandering is an old, old practice. The GOP has simply used modern technology to get exceedingly good at it, so the maps they started re-drawing after the 2010 election will be exceedingly difficult to change.

Extreme levels of gerrymandering is just another part of the GOP's consistent stance against democracy.  They want nothing to do with "majority rules". They're against increasing voter turnout unless it's the turnout rate of white guys. They don't see changing demographics as a reason to try to broaden their appeal to a more diverse voter base. They'd rather keep "those people" from voting. Early voting favors Democrats? Cut it. Long lines make it hard for people in urban areas to vote? Good. Time to open even more polling places in predominately white suburbs and close them in urban areas. Make it easier for people to participate in our elections with automatic registration and an election day holiday? Fark that! More poors might vote if you do that! Strict voter id laws disproportionate effect minorities? Sweet! Falsely claim illegal voting is a huge problem so we can push more of those through!
 
2017-09-13 11:39:56 AM  

The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.


I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.
 
2017-09-13 11:42:16 AM  

DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.


Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.
 
2017-09-13 11:44:17 AM  

EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.


When was that agreed to?
 
2017-09-13 11:44:29 AM  
Gerrymandering needs to be taken out back and shot but I am not sure if  the efficiency gap test is the one to load the bullet and do the deed.  It is inherently biased to favor the dems in states with at least one large city.
 
2017-09-13 11:46:28 AM  

machoprogrammer: The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.

I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.


So who do I call to help twist the local politos arms when the locals let me down?
 
2017-09-13 11:46:57 AM  

LoveToSpoog: I'm from central Wisconsin. I don't see a bit of difference between Wisconsin and Kentucky right now.

[img.fark.net image 850x478]


6 months of winter.  Big difference
 
2017-09-13 11:47:09 AM  

The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.


It's called the Party List system.  Each party submits a list of candidates, and if they get, say, 15 seats, the top 15 names from their list fill those seats.

It does mean that unelectable sleazeballs don't have to face voters directly and have a better chance of getting in if they're near the top of the list, but in a country where people blindly vote D or R (especially for downticket races), it probably won't make much of a difference.
 
2017-09-13 11:49:25 AM  

ginandbacon: From a better article: "Judges who heard Whitford found 2-1 last year that a 2011 district map drawn by Republicans for Wisconsin's state legislature was made specifically to disadvantage Democrats.

Despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, Republicans won 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly that year."

This is a true crisis in our democracy. Here's hoping SCOTUS does the right thing.


Hahahahaha hahahahahaha do the right thing. That's adorable.
 
2017-09-13 11:51:41 AM  

EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.


Democrats refused to fight for Garland because they're pussies.  Republicans would've made governing impossible over that.  Dems are the folks at the gunfight, holding a potato peeler.  I hate Republicans, wish I had representation
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-09-13 11:52:42 AM  

patrick767: Gerrymandering is an old, old practice. The GOP has simply used modern technology to get exceedingly good at it, so the maps they started re-drawing after the 2010 election will be exceedingly difficult to change.


The technology is so good that an open source algorithm can be built that makes all districting fair.

Of course, you need a fair group of people in congress or in the courts to make that happen.
 
2017-09-13 11:53:42 AM  

EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.


Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.
 
2017-09-13 11:54:43 AM  

machoprogrammer: The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.

I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.


With the inevitable result that one party wins 100% of the seats.
 
2017-09-13 11:56:36 AM  

Hobodeluxe: ginandbacon: From a better article: "Judges who heard Whitford found 2-1 last year that a 2011 district map drawn by Republicans for Wisconsin's state legislature was made specifically to disadvantage Democrats.

Despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, Republicans won 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly that year."

This is a true crisis in our democracy. Here's hoping SCOTUS does the right thing.

yeah right. they just gave Texas the greenlight to continue with their rigged maps for the foreseeable future. Don't expect them to come to democracy's defense.


i1377.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 11:58:22 AM  

qorkfiend: machoprogrammer: The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.

I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.

With the inevitable result that one party wins 100% of the seats.


Unlikely. The lesser popular party would still likely win at least one seat with their most popular candidate
 
2017-09-13 11:59:15 AM  

Corn_Fed: EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.

Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.


Republicans threatened to shut down the government when the president acted "uppity" to them. Is it asking too much that Democrats made an honest effort to at least look like they're willing to fight somebody who's breaking the law right in their goddam face?
 
2017-09-13 11:59:20 AM  

d23: patrick767: Gerrymandering is an old, old practice. The GOP has simply used modern technology to get exceedingly good at it, so the maps they started re-drawing after the 2010 election will be exceedingly difficult to change.

The technology is so good that an open source algorithm can be built that makes all districting fair.

Of course, you need a fair group of people in congress or in the courts to make that happen.


Define fair.

I hate that term.  Completely meaningless.
 
2017-09-13 12:01:45 PM  

Saiga410: d23: patrick767: Gerrymandering is an old, old practice. The GOP has simply used modern technology to get exceedingly good at it, so the maps they started re-drawing after the 2010 election will be exceedingly difficult to change.

The technology is so good that an open source algorithm can be built that makes all districting fair.

Of course, you need a fair group of people in congress or in the courts to make that happen.

Define fair.

I hate that term.  Completely meaningless.


It means, "What I agree with."
 
2017-09-13 12:04:57 PM  

Corn_Fed: EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.

Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.


Use every lever of parliamentary procedure to shut down Congress.  No matter what Republicans want to discuss, you ask:  "when does a president become a lame duck who can't make nominations?  One year out?  I need to know, so I know when to start ignoring the next Republican president."  Freeze the wheels of government and dominate the news until November.  We had a president significantly more popular than congressional Republicans.  Republicans hijacked democracy and Democrats had a few press conferences.
 
2017-09-13 12:08:22 PM  

machoprogrammer: qorkfiend: machoprogrammer: The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.

I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.

With the inevitable result that one party wins 100% of the seats.

Unlikely. The lesser popular party would still likely win at least one seat with their most popular candidate


Unlikely. There wouldn't, for example, be 7 candidates for 5 seats; there would be 10 candidates, 5 from each party, and the partisans would vote for all 5.

The candidates would also all run as a bloc, not individually, so the likelihood of non-partisans splitting their ticket is low.

This also only applies in states where the partisan divide is relatively close. In states like California or Texas, one party would easily carry all of the seats.

I can't imagine why you believe this is somehow an improvement.
 
MFK
2017-09-13 12:10:27 PM  

Naido: Corn_Fed: EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.

Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.

Use every lever of parliamentary procedure to shut down Congress.  No matter what Republicans want to discuss, you ask:  "when does a president become a lame duck who can't make nominations?  One year out?  I need to know, so I know when to start ignoring the next Republican president."  Freeze the wheels of government and dominate the news until November.  We had a president significantly more popular than congressional Republicans.  Republicans hijacked democracy and Democrats had a few press conferences.


this this and this
 
2017-09-13 12:19:47 PM  

qorkfiend: machoprogrammer: qorkfiend: machoprogrammer: The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.

I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.

With the inevitable result that one party wins 100% of the seats.

Unlikely. The lesser popular party would still likely win at least one seat with their most popular candidate

Unlikely. There wouldn't, for example, be 7 candidates for 5 seats; there would be 10 candidates, 5 from each party, and the partisans would vote for all 5.

The candidates would also all run as a bloc, not individually, so the likelihood of non-partisans splitting their ticket is low.

This also only applies in states where the partisan divide is relatively close. In states like California or Texas, one party would easily carry all of the seats.

I can't imagine why you believe this is somehow an improvement.


You're assuming each voter can vote for as many as they want. If each voter only gets one, you have to split the ticket or you get one candidate who gets all the votes the entire party only gets one seat.

Which is why you vote party and candidate. It ensures the party gets at least the representation of its share of the popular vote (presumably you'd round up for the most popular party).
 
2017-09-13 12:20:14 PM  

MFK: Naido: Corn_Fed: EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.

Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.

Use every lever of parliamentary procedure to shut down Congress.  No matter what Republicans want to discuss, you ask:  "when does a president become a lame duck who can't make nominations?  One year out?  I need to know, so I know when to start ignoring the next Republican president."  Freeze the wheels of government and dominate the news until November.  We had a president significantly more popular than congressional Republicans.  Republicans hijacked democracy and Democrats had a few press conferences.

this this and this


Difficulty: Republicans controlled Congress and therefore the levers. The Democrats do not control Congress, and thus control far fewer levers.
 
2017-09-13 12:22:03 PM  
If you freeze out one team's players in the bush leagues it's not surprising they haven't developed the talent to play in the majors.

Further, using districts to divide people who have a common interest, such as members of a community or township, is not good for the health of that area. It makes it difficult for those people to benefit together from a representative's actions and reduces the incentive for a representative to help the area as opposed to his base.
 
2017-09-13 12:23:44 PM  

The Madd Mann: qorkfiend: machoprogrammer: qorkfiend: machoprogrammer: The Madd Mann: Given advances in communication and transportation, I really think having specific representatives from small geographic areas is an outdated idea.

Solution: All candidate are put in one group. Everyone votes a party and a candidate. Seats are allocated to party based on overall voting percentage, and to candidates within the party based on their share of the intra-party vote.

I like the idea of all of the candidates are running for X seats. Then the top X vote-getters get in.

So if there are 7 candidates and 5 seats, the top 5 vote getters get in.

With the inevitable result that one party wins 100% of the seats.

Unlikely. The lesser popular party would still likely win at least one seat with their most popular candidate

Unlikely. There wouldn't, for example, be 7 candidates for 5 seats; there would be 10 candidates, 5 from each party, and the partisans would vote for all 5.

The candidates would also all run as a bloc, not individually, so the likelihood of non-partisans splitting their ticket is low.

This also only applies in states where the partisan divide is relatively close. In states like California or Texas, one party would easily carry all of the seats.

I can't imagine why you believe this is somehow an improvement.

You're assuming each voter can vote for as many as they want. If each voter only gets one, you have to split the ticket or you get one candidate who gets all the votes the entire party only gets one seat.

Which is why you vote party and candidate. It ensures the party gets at least the representation of its share of the popular vote (presumably you'd round up for the most popular party).


Why on earth would you want to introduce this level of complexity instead of straight proportional representation?
 
2017-09-13 12:25:09 PM  

qorkfiend: MFK: Naido: Corn_Fed: EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.

Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.

Use every lever of parliamentary procedure to shut down Congress.  No matter what Republicans want to discuss, you ask:  "when does a president become a lame duck who can't make nominations?  One year out?  I need to know, so I know when to start ignoring the next Republican president."  Freeze the wheels of government and dominate the news until November.  We had a president significantly more popular than congressional Republicans.  Republicans hijacked democracy and Democrats had a few press conferences.

this this and this

Difficulty: Republicans controlled Congress and therefore the levers. The Democrats do not control Congress, and thus control far fewer levers.


Republicans didn't even have enough votes for cloture.  And that's just the most obvious thing
 
2017-09-13 12:35:59 PM  

Naido: qorkfiend: MFK: Naido: Corn_Fed: EyeballKid: DeaH: Mitch McConnell did not steal the Supreme Court to make voting easier or more effective for his opponents.

Hey, it takes two to tango, and one political party agreed to lie down and refuse to fight for Merrick Garland because the out-of-work coal miner who used the n-word for Obama might not vote Democrat if they did.

Refused to fight? What exactly should they have done? Be specific.

Use every lever of parliamentary procedure to shut down Congress.  No matter what Republicans want to discuss, you ask:  "when does a president become a lame duck who can't make nominations?  One year out?  I need to know, so I know when to start ignoring the next Republican president."  Freeze the wheels of government and dominate the news until November.  We had a president significantly more popular than congressional Republicans.  Republicans hijacked democracy and Democrats had a few press conferences.

this this and this

Difficulty: Republicans controlled Congress and therefore the levers. The Democrats do not control Congress, and thus control far fewer levers.

Republicans didn't even have enough votes for cloture.  And that's just the most obvious thing


I said "fewer leverage of power", not "no levers of power". More to the point, that didn't stop Gorsuch from being confirmed.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report