U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-20-2014, 02:14 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 9,481,967 times
Reputation: 5734

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
As it was already stating, you are basically saying you are ok with someone losing the election in that state by 5 to 12%, but winning the majority of gerrymandered congressional districts and there for getting the majority of the State electoral college.
Its proportional so they are allotted by % of statewide vote, not by winner in each congressional district (like Maine and Nebraska).
So Obama would have "won" Michigan 11-5 is 2012, and 12-5 in 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2014, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Idaho
2,512 posts, read 2,254,960 times
Reputation: 5256
I love the dems who scream this is a republican idea due to gerrymandering. It seems you dems are against gerrymandering in a republican state, but not against it in a democratic state. Once you all remember that it has been done in just about every state in the union, you can take a pass on the subject and start reacting logically.

And it was the dems who a few years ago tried to push the proportional electoral votes for CO, but then the state "appeared" to turn blue and the subject was dropped.

In reality, it should be proportional. Why should some politician win all that electoral college votes when they only win a state by a (example) 51-49? The votes from the 49 do not mean a darn thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2014, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 29,425,983 times
Reputation: 7829
Quote:
Originally Posted by f5fstop View Post
I love the dems who scream this is a republican idea due to gerrymandering. It seems you dems are against gerrymandering in a republican state, but not against it in a democratic state. Once you all remember that it has been done in just about every state in the union, you can take a pass on the subject and start reacting logically.

And it was the dems who a few years ago tried to push the proportional electoral votes for CO, but then the state "appeared" to turn blue and the subject was dropped.

In reality, it should be proportional. Why should some politician win all that electoral college votes when they only win a state by a (example) 51-49? The votes from the 49 do not mean a darn thing.
I don't speak for everyone, but I am against gerrymandering in ALL states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2014, 01:13 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,268,296 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by f5fstop View Post
I love the dems who scream this is a republican idea due to gerrymandering. It seems you dems are against gerrymandering in a republican state, but not against it in a democratic state. Once you all remember that it has been done in just about every state in the union, you can take a pass on the subject and start reacting logically.

And it was the dems who a few years ago tried to push the proportional electoral votes for CO, but then the state "appeared" to turn blue and the subject was dropped.

In reality, it should be proportional. Why should some politician win all that electoral college votes when they only win a state by a (example) 51-49? The votes from the 49 do not mean a darn thing.
1) Michigan is NOT a Republican State. Michigan has gone blue since 1992.

2) Republican states aren't proposing this idea in their own states, because it doesn't benefit them.

3) We done condone any gerrymandering, but the FACTS are that Republicans gerrymander more than Democrats. Democratic gerrymandering is concentrated in two states; Illinois and Maryland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2014, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,479 posts, read 6,333,449 times
Reputation: 1197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
We done condone any gerrymandering, but the FACTS are that Republicans gerrymander more than Democrats. Democratic gerrymandering is concentrated in two states; Illinois and Maryland.
Huh? Is there an actual fact to support this (other than the fact that Republicans controls more state legislatures than Democrats)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2014, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Greater Washington, DC
1,347 posts, read 921,081 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
But, you won't see a bill like this brought on the floor in a Republican State!!!

True. You would never see a state like Nebraska implement this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2014, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,223,537 times
Reputation: 7950
I can't for the life of me understand the obsession with electoral math. In 53 of 57 elections, the winner of the popular vote also won the electoral college.

One of the 4 exceptions was Andrew Jackson in 1828, which was not a case of losing the electoral college. Rather various parties made a deal ('corrupt bargain,' Jackson called it) to install JQ Adams as prez via the US House. So really there were only 3 of 57 elections where a candidate won the popular and lost the electoral vote.

Charlie Cook: Ignore The Electoral College Math
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2014, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,600 posts, read 33,585,802 times
Reputation: 51703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Basically this is just another way for Republicans to rig the game to stay in power.

Republicans control most of the districts through gerrymandering. This is posturing to translate that into electoral college gains through isolating Democratic voting blocks.

Republicans know they can't win the electoral college outright, so they are attempting to pack their voters. Just more erosion of our democracy.
You just are unluckily census-challenged. You need to be in charge every 10 years when the census is done.

There's a good gerrymandering explanation article here:

Gerrymandering - Proving All Politics Is Local | Politics & Policy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2014, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Just outside of McDonough, Georgia
1,057 posts, read 845,842 times
Reputation: 1315
I would not say that gerrymandering is strictly a Dem or GOP problem. When political partisans are in charge of drawing the district lines, stupid things happen.

For example, look at Dem-controlled Maryland, whose 3rd congressional district makes no sense whatsoever. You can't tell me that's not modern gerrymandering at its worst.

Then, there's GOP-controlled Texas, who essentially shut Austin, a city of 885,000, out of Congress in 2003 through slimy redistricting (I was living in Texas when the redistricting was going on). By splitting the state's most liberal city into bits and pieces of four congressional districts that are then drawn to include substantial swaths of conservative areas (one stretches all the way to Houston!), Austin cannot elect a representative who represents the city's views.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. history is filled with examples of both parties gerrymandering districts to fit racial or partisan purposes.

Of all the states in the U.S., I think Iowa has the right idea. Ironically, the Iowa redistricting process came about because of both parties' concern that they would lose in 1980, and that the minority party would "need protection":

Quote:
The current system was enacted by the state Legislature in 1980 in a near-unanimous vote when Republicans held control of both chambers as well the governorship.

At the time, Republicans wanted to have a redistricting plan in place that would protect the minority party in the event the GOP lost in 1980, and Democrats agreed out of concern that their own party could be the one to lose. The bill assigned the task of drawing legislative boundaries to a nonpartisan, independent agency called the Legislative Services Agency.
- skbl17
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2014, 04:00 PM
 
53 posts, read 46,344 times
Reputation: 53
This article shows some more information on Gerrymandering, it's pretty commonly done by both parties, but republicans are seemingly better at it.

America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts - The Washington Post

Also this Michigan bill could only really matter for the next election or two. Because the National Popular Vote Intersate Compact may have enough electoral votes to go into effect in the next 5-10 years
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top