The real life effects of gerrymandering explained

[oldshadow]

I'm not sure you do. Ok, let's say you're right. Seeing we don't want mob rule, and as I sure you know that term comes from ancient Greek philosophy (aristotle), keeping in line with the original hypothesis, the obvious solution is only those with university degrees should be able to vote.

Surely you agree? Can't have the mob ruling.

To be more safe from the mob, let's up that qualification to vote to a masters, or even a PhD.

Here is a little light reading to help you understand.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

 

[Happiness]

Here is a little light reading to help you understand.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

You agree with me right? Only the well educated should be able to vote. You don't want the mob in control.

America is a representative democracy. Look it up. (In theroy anyway, citizens united kind of fucked that) There are no direct democracies anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.

 

[oldshadow]

You agree with me right? Only the well educated should be able to vote. You don't want the mob in control.

I'm not playing stupid games with you. I believe you know what I meant by mob rule, which pure democracy is.

Read the link, it's nice and simple.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

So you agree their party is terrible. Why shouldnt they be allowed to die out?

They are a little more terrible than democrats and the only party keeping our immigration in check. Why should I want them to die out? Liberals without checks would turn us into Brazil, a 2nd world country with extreme levels of crime in their cities. Oh but the diversity they have... Yea right.

 

[Happiness]

I'm not playing stupid games with you. I believe you know what I meant by mob rule, which pure democracy is.

Read the link, it's nice and simple.

I know exactly what the term means and where it originated. The proffered solution was only the educated could vote. Stop dodging the question. Or, do you have a different set of criterion?

There's no such thing as a "pure democracy." I've explained this already.

I sense you don't have a tertiary education. That's the only thing I have learned in this thread.

 

[oldshadow]

I know exactly what the term means and where it originated. The proffered solution was only the educated could vote. Stop dodging the question. Or, do you have a different set of criterion?

There's no such thing as a "pure democracy." I've explained this already.

I sense you don't have a tertiary education. That's the only thing I have learned in this thread.

Where have I stated they every vote should not count. The fact the government here is set up to help prevent large population areas from total rule.

 

[Happiness]

Where have I stated they every vote should not count. The fact the government here is set up to help prevent large population areas from total rule.

Why exactly are country folks votes worth more? Are they a superior type of human?

 

[oldshadow]

Why exactly are country folks votes worth more? Are they a superior type of human?

And why should urban folks get to rule over people they know nothing about. Which is why our government is set up the way it is. It's a give and take with checks and balances.

Also if I remember right you don't live in the US so how does this affect you.

 

[7437]

They are a little more terrible than democrats and the only party keeping our immigration in check. Why should I want them to die out? Liberals without checks would turn us into Brazil, a 2nd world country with extreme levels of crime in their cities. Oh but the diversity they have... Yea right.

Im certain that the conservatives wouldnt just stop existing. A non republican conservative party would pop up

 

[Happiness]

And why should urban folks get to rule over people they know nothing about. Which is why our government is set up the way it is. It's a give and take with checks and balances.

Also if I remember right you don't live in the US so how does this affect you.

Why should country folk rule over people they know nothing about, especially because there's less of them.

PS country folks are not some unknown puzzle to most people who live in cities.

 

[oldshadow]

Why should country folk rule over people they know nothing about, especially because there's less of them.

PS country folks are not some unknown puzzle to most people who live in cities.

Which is why the checks and balances works, despite the bitching of some people.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Fuck that, we need gerrymandering. The democrats will eventually capture a latino voting block that will be over 30% of the total vote. It is happening, cue the ron paul gif. The most rural of rural areas will be the only places left. I will give the republicans all the advantages they can get for now. I'm not interested in a one party system.

So because the GOP can't win on a fair playing field we should encourage an unfair system which favors one party? Here's a thought, maybe the GOP could try reaching out to Hispanics instead of segregating Hispanic voters into as few districts as possible. But actually trying to appeal to a base beyond corporate sponsors and rural white Americans might be asking too much of the GOP...

 

[Islam Imamate]

They are a little more terrible than democrats and the only party keeping our immigration in check. Why should I want them to die out? Liberals without checks would turn us into Brazil, a 2nd world country with extreme levels of crime in their cities. Oh but the diversity they have... Yea right.

Lol, because it was the leftists that brought all the blacks to Brazil via Marxist open borders and not, ya know, plantation owners via slave ships...

 

[Trotsky]

Do you know how the electoral college works, and why it was designed the way it was?

Yes. And I support the electoral college.

What point are you trying to make? Do you dispute that rural Americans exercise vastly greater electoral power than their metropolitan counterparts? Yet we still incessantly have to listen to them bitch about how those city folks get all the say.

 

[Starman]

Yes. And I support the electoral college.

What point are you trying to make? Do you dispute that rural Americans exercise vastly greater electoral power than their metropolitan counterparts?

Yes. A candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California California (55).

Larger states have far greater influence on the electorate than small states.

Yet we still incessantly have to listen to them bitch about how those city folks get all the say.

We obviously run in different circles. The only people I hear who feel the electoral college is unfair and want to see it ripped down are leftwingers who don't know shit about it. I don't recall too many on the right criticizing it for being "unfair."

 

[Higus]

Yes. A candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California California (55).

Larger states have far greater influence on the electorate than small states.

That's inaccurate. The electoral college ensures that PURPLE states have greater influence than both large and small states. A minority voter in a deeply red/blue state is disenfranchised for national elections.

We obviously run in different circles. The only people I hear who feel the electoral college is unfair and want to see it ripped down are leftwingers who don't know shit about it. I don't recall too many on the right criticizing it for being "unfair."

I know it will never happen (entirely by design), but it would be interesting to see how people of this opinion would react if the roles were reversed and conservative candidates lost the White House despite winning the popular vote twice in their lifetimes.

 

[Starman]

Yes. A candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California California (55).

Larger states have far greater influence on the electorate than small states.

That's inaccurate.

What do you mean it's inaccurate? It's math. Either the math is right or it isn't. I wasn't stating opinions.

The electoral college ensures that PURPLE states have greater influence than both large and small states. A minority voter in a deeply red/blue state is disenfranchised for national elections.

The electoral college ensures that whoever wins a majority of the electorate becomes president. That is all it ensures.

A minority would be even more disenfranchised if elections were decided by the popular vote. In the popular vote, the minority is guaranteed to lose every single time. Right or wrong?

I know it will never happen (entirely by design), but it would be interesting to see how people of this opinion would react if the roles were reversed and conservative candidates lost the White House despite winning the popular vote twice in their lifetimes.

I love this country, and the values it was founded on. I understand why the U.S. uses the electoral college, and I think it is far superior to the popular vote. A candidate has to win a majority of the electorate to become president. A candidate doesn't have to win a majority of votes in the popular vote to become president. It is a flawed system.

If Trump had won the popular vote but not the election, I would not be shouting for the electoral college to be abolished. I would have been disappointed with the results, but in no way would it have undermined my faith in the system.