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.
Under the new proposal a Special Election would still occur to finish out the current Senate term that expires in 2022. The change that is being proposed is the Special Election Date would be pushed back from November 2018 to November 2020 if McCain were to pass away or resign prior to May 31st.
The appointee replacement would only serve until the next general which would be Nov 2020. Not to put him in the grave yet, but in all likelihood we will be voting for senator again in two years. Whoever wins that would serve until the end of McCain term so we vote again in 2022.
.. The change that is being proposed is the Special Election Date would be pushed back from November 2018 to November 2020 if McCain were to pass away or resign prior to May 31st.
Correct. The current law is May 31st, so if McCain were to pass away or resign prior to May 31st the Special Election will be held this year. If he were to pass away or resign after that date it would not be held this year and be held in Nov 2020 (there is some ambiguity for next November, but the general consensus is the next General Election).
Under the new proposed law in order to have the Special Election occur in the same year as the next General, the vacancy would have had to occur prior to March 31st (which has already past).
If McCain were to remain in the seat beyond May 31st the proposal would not mean anything (for this year anyway) as it would already be too late to hold it this year as per current state law. However, if he were to vacate the seat between now and May 31st that is where the proposal would impact when the Special Election would occur. With that being said the chances of this becoming law if McCain were to vacate the seat prior to May 31st seems very slim as it appears the GOP could only pass it on an emergency basis which they currently do not have the votes for.
Gerrymandering can account for at least some of the majority in Congress. That's why Republicans always fight so hard against drawing state district maps fairly, such as in Pennsylvania. They know that without that built-in advantage, they run a much greater risk of losing their grip on power.
As for your map, you do realize that land doesn't vote, right? The blue areas are where population is concentrated or where there are heavy concentrations of racial minorities (like in parts of the Deep South) that vote almost entirely for Democrats.
"That's why Republicans always fight so hard against drawing state district maps fairly,"
You must b either very your or ignorant if history.
The DEMS controlled the House for 40 straight years as well as most states and gerrymandered the hell out of every district which helped them have that control for 40 STRAIGHT years.
My personal experience, my county was starting to get MORE repubs then dems so the dems split the county 4 ways putting each part in a dem controlled district.
Look up old district maps.
So, save us the sudden "concern"!
What about racial district gerrymandering which is DEMANDED by the Voting Rights Act?
"The first is the use of majority-minority districts. These are political districts in which members of a racial minority make up an effective voting majority. This gives them the ability to participate and elect representatives of their own choosing, and has been the solution of choice in situations where there is, or could be, racial vote dilution.'
"That's why Republicans always fight so hard against drawing state district maps fairly,"
You must b either very your or ignorant if history.
The DEMS controlled the House for 40 straight years as well as most states and gerrymandered the hell out of every district which helped them have that control for 40 STRAIGHT years.
My personal experience, my county was starting to get MORE repubs then dems so the dems split the county 4 ways putting each part in a dem controlled district.
Look up old district maps.
So, save us the sudden "concern"!
What about racial district gerrymandering which is DEMANDED by the Voting Rights Act?
"The first is the use of majority-minority districts. These are political districts in which members of a racial minority make up an effective voting majority. This gives them the ability to participate and elect representatives of their own choosing, and has been the solution of choice in situations where there is, or could be, racial vote dilution.'
I'm 100% for fairly-drawn districts. I do not agree with either side doing it. That said, Republicans stand to lose much more in a fair process now because they are fighting against the demographic tide and they've done virtually nothing to attract anyone new.
There's a reason the VRA had this provision. Think hard about why that is.
"That's why Republicans always fight so hard against drawing state district maps fairly,"
You must b either very your or ignorant if history.
The DEMS controlled the House for 40 straight years as well as most states and gerrymandered the hell out of every district which helped them have that control for 40 STRAIGHT years.
My personal experience, my county was starting to get MORE repubs then dems so the dems split the county 4 ways putting each part in a dem controlled district.
Look up old district maps.
So, save us the sudden "concern"!
What about racial district gerrymandering which is DEMANDED by the Voting Rights Act?
"The first is the use of majority-minority districts. These are political districts in which members of a racial minority make up an effective voting majority. This gives them the ability to participate and elect representatives of their own choosing, and has been the solution of choice in situations where there is, or could be, racial vote dilution.'
Minority districts have actually benefited Rs because it allows some states to contrive giant minority sinkholes of districts that cluster as many minorities (typically D) in one district as possible and whiten up surrounding districts. The other impact is that by carving out theses districts you also see some larger metros split in a manner that dilutes urban votes among several disticts.
In my state (SC) the typical election results are Rs in the 50s, Ds in the 40s but our US Reps are 6-1 R because of the division of districts. If you google Jim Clyburns District it is a bit of an abomination. A prominent R called mocked it recently and Clyburn actually invited him to take back half the district and redistribute accordingly.
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.
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.
