5 minutes ago, Redline said:

I guess you no nothing about the election.  You are signaling you don’t know anything about what has been going on  ?

The Founding Fathers worried about "the tyranny of the majority" and put ample safeguards against it in the US Constitution.  However they also appreciated the importance of protecting the interests of the majority, and created the House of Representative with the intent that it would represent the majority.

 

However the Founding Fathers had no way to anticipate how society, the population, and state politics would evolve.   The Democrats will need a significant majority of the votes cast, 53.5%, to have a 50/50 chance of getting a majority in the House, the part of government designed to represent the majority. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats The odds of winning the Senate are much worse.  Two of the three Presidents since 2000 entered office after losing the popular vote.

 

Safeguards against "the tyranny of the majority" have lead to the tyranny of the minority.  That is profoundly undemocratic and definitely not what the Founding Father wanted. 

 

The first step in changing this undemocratic system is to make everyone aware of it.  For that reason it is perfectly reasonable to correct those who try to present Trump as the voters choice--Trump lost the popular vote!

So at the end..China or Russia ? ...and tomorrow will it be Iran or North Korea ?....chill down boys, the world has been messed up enough lately.

Just now, heybruce said:

 

However the Founding Fathers had no way to anticipate how society, the population, and state politics would evolve.   The Democrats will need a significant majority of the votes cast, 53.5%, to have a 50/50 chance of getting a majority in the House, the part of government designed to represent the majority. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats 

 

I do not now how the Economist came up with those numbers. I will copy and paste:

The House is composed of Representatives who sit in congressional districts that are allocated to each of the 50 states on a basis of population as measured by the U.S. Census, with each district entitled to one representative. Since its inception in 1789, all Representatives have been directly elected.  

4 minutes ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

I do not now how the Economist came up with those numbers. I will copy and paste:

The House is composed of Representatives who sit in congressional districts that are allocated to each of the 50 states on a basis of population as measured by the U.S. Census, with each district entitled to one representative. Since its inception in 1789, all Representatives have been directly elected.  

If you don't know, I'll help you. From the linked article:

" This imbalance is partly due to deliberate attempts to create districts that provide such results, and partly just down to the fact that Democrats tend to live more tightly bunched together in cities. Together, these two factors put up quite an obstacle. According to our model, the Democrats need to win 53.5% of all votes cast for the two major parties just to have a 50/50 chance of winning a majority in the House. ".

Just now, stevenl said:

If you don't know, I'll help you. From the linked article:

" This imbalance is partly due to deliberate attempts to create districts that provide such results, and partly just down to the fact that Democrats tend to live more tightly bunched together in cities. Together, these two factors put up quite an obstacle. According to our model, the Democrats need to win 53.5% of all votes cast for the two major parties just to have a 50/50 chance of winning a majority in the House. ".

I understand that elections for the house are about as democratic as you can get: one person one vote; who gets the most votes wins.  The economist is just whining.

18 minutes ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

I understand that elections for the house are about as democratic as you can get: one person one vote; who gets the most votes wins.  The economist is just whining.

Ok, so you don't understand it.

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Ok, so you don't understand it.

Do you know if the Economist figures account for the blatant gerrymandering that the GOP have inflicted on the nation? I would think so but...

35 minutes ago, Slip said:

Do you know if the Economist figures account for the blatant gerrymandering that the GOP have inflicted on the nation? I would think so but...

Apologies- The answer is in the article.

2 hours ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

I understand that elections for the house are about as democratic as you can get: one person one vote; who gets the most votes wins.  The economist is just whining.

You don't understand gerrymandering and demographic distributions?  Sorry, I won't explain them to you, you're on your own.

 

The Economist is a UK magazine, but very much pro-democracy, pro-free market, and pro-capitalism.  Unlike the current Republican party.

Just now, heybruce said:

You don't understand gerrymandering and demographic distributions?  Sorry, I won't explain them to you, you're on your own.

 

The Economist is a UK magazine, but very much pro-democracy, pro-free market, and pro-capitalism.  Unlike the current Republican party.

I understand gerrymandering and demographic distribution very well.  Gerrymandering has a huge impact on congressional races.  Republicans and Democrats are both pretty good at it when they control State Houses.  Demographic distribution has a huge impact on a presidential race as we have recently witnessed, but tell me, how does demographic distribution impact a congressional race ?

33 minutes ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

I understand gerrymandering and demographic distribution very well.  Gerrymandering has a huge impact on congressional races.  Republicans and Democrats are both pretty good at it when they control State Houses.  Demographic distribution has a huge impact on a presidential race as we have recently witnessed, but tell me, how does demographic distribution impact a congressional race ?

Urban areas are predominantly Democrat.  Rural areas are usually Republican, but not as strongly as urban areas are Democratic.  It is a from of natural gerrymandering, many of the districts that elect Representatives to the House are Republican by a small margin, say a 60%-40% split, while a smaller number of urban districts that elect Representative are largely Democratic, maybe 80%-20%.

 

Is that clear enough?

On 8/29/2018 at 3:21 PM, webfact said:

Trump, without evidence

...

 

This should be the standard start to any of his tweets, any story that quotes him and at the start of any of his rallies.

 

Just get it out of the way so his blind followers don't have to deal with reality and the rest of us can just ignore anything that comes out of his mouth hole.

 

4 hours ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

I understand gerrymandering and demographic distribution very well.  Gerrymandering has a huge impact on congressional races.  Republicans and Democrats are both pretty good at it when they control State Houses.  Demographic distribution has a huge impact on a presidential race as we have recently witnessed, but tell me, how does demographic distribution impact a congressional race ?

North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Gerrymandered Congressional Map. Again.

 

A panel of three federal judges again declared North Carolina’s congressional district map to be unconstitutional, ruling on Monday that it was gerrymandered to unfairly favor Republican candidates.

The decision, which may have significant implications for control of Congress after the midterm elections, is likely to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which for the moment is evenly split on ideological lines without a ninth justice to tip the balance.

Though North Carolina’s voters tend to divide about evenly between the two parties, Republicans currently hold 10 of the state’s 13 House seats. A redrawn district map may put more of the seats within Democrats’ reach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/us/north-carolina-congressional-districts.html

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Gerrymandered Congressional Map. Again.

 

A panel of three federal judges again declared North Carolina’s congressional district map to be unconstitutional, ruling on Monday that it was gerrymandered to unfairly favor Republican candidates.

The decision, which may have significant implications for control of Congress after the midterm elections, is likely to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which for the moment is evenly split on ideological lines without a ninth justice to tip the balance.

Though North Carolina’s voters tend to divide about evenly between the two parties, Republicans currently hold 10 of the state’s 13 House seats. A redrawn district map may put more of the seats within Democrats’ reach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/us/north-carolina-congressional-districts.html

Gerrymandering is not limited to contest between political parties but also used between races. In a recent case African-American against Latino-American in the same political party!

Texas lawmakers must redraw Fort Worth’s House District 90 — or the courts will

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article217603090.html