Democrats gear up to fight gerrymandering after state House losses

[Jack Hays]

I am not interested in your beliefs. I am interested in your arguments, and you have failed to provide them to support your beliefs.
End of story, indeed!

Nothing more is needed.

 

[skeptic llc]

The remedy for gerrymandering by one party is, and always has been, for the other party to work harder and win elections. Democrats used to do that, and gerrymander, at the state level. Then the Republicans surpassed them in state-level effort, and they won and returned the gerrymandering favor.

Historically, I believe that's correct. For those who have suffered under minority rule for quite awhile during their short (in the grand scheme of things) lifetimes, it sucks.

 

[pamak]

Historically, I believe that's correct. For those who have suffered under minority rule for quite awhile during their short (in the grand scheme of things) lifetimes, it sucks.

History is not a field where justice has been served. In fact, for most part of the history, there was enormous injustice.

Also, we do not have a notion of justice where two wrongs make a right. So, even if in the long term one abuse by a party is replaced by the abuse of a new party in power, this is still not sufficient to establish a claim that we have justice. It just magnifies injustice.

 

[Jack Hays]

Historically, I believe that's correct. For those who have suffered under minority rule for quite awhile during their short (in the grand scheme of things) lifetimes, it sucks.

Which is the motivation to work harder to win elections.

 

[skeptic llc]

Which is the motivation to work harder to win elections.

True, but also not fair. As in so many thing, the only solution to obstacles is to *still* outperform those who don't face them ... while also recognizing that doesn't make the uneven playing field ok.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Exactly. I approve of all attempts to de-politicize things that shouldn't be politicized.

Like I would be down with packing the courts, but only if it was designed to remove them as political footballs AND was balanced with conservative justices to make the initial playing field as fair as possible.

Then if it moves one way or the other it will take time and more likely reflect the will of the people.

As far as the country getting a fair playing field that's unlikely. We can't even run an election that doesn't further separate the voters. Democrats and Republicans are not close.

 

[Jack Hays]

True, but also not fair. As in so many thing, the only solution to obstacles is to *still* outperform those who don't face them ... while also recognizing that doesn't make the uneven playing field ok.

The system is utterly fair -- the same opportunities are available to all. That does not mean that at any particular time the playing field is level. The point of the system is two contending sides trying to tilt the field in their favor, and thereby checking each other.

 

[skeptic llc]

The system is utterly fair -- the same opportunities are available to all. That does not mean that at any particular time the playing field is level. The point of the system is two contending sides trying to tilt the field in their favor, and thereby checking each other.

A better system would have two contending sides competing on a level playing field though.

 

[Jack Hays]

A better system would have two contending sides competing on a level playing field though.

Over time the field is level. At any given moment one side may have the advantage.

 

[pamak]

Over time the field is level. At any given moment one side may have the advantage.

You make no sense because you equate fairness with the idea that over time unfairness affects everybody.

 

[Juks]

I am not interested in your beliefs. I am interested in your arguments, and you have failed to provide them to support your beliefs.
End of story, indeed!

It is the remedy. It is the fairest remedy humanly possible.

Please define What you mean by "fair". I can see that you and pamak have different definitions of the word and I do understand Pamaks' definition, but I do not get yours.

And you don't have to go into a complicated exposition over how your political system works and how it interacts between states, the goverment, the legal system, regulations and laws. Just give me the definition you have for the word.

exposition

 

[bomberfox]

What did Doug Jones say about that?

He lost to a longtime college football coach with absolutely no experience in politics, so his own loss on November 3 was all about Republican voters wanting him out, not Tommy Tuberville in.

Ooookay if you want to just ignore advice then i dont know what to tell ya. Investing in on the ground infrastructure instead of what the DCCC typically does and just investing in a politician’s war chest can do a lot to get the voters that are typically missed by the head honchos in southern states can be winning strategies. I actually disagree about alabama not wanting tuberville in, this is Alabama we are talking about, football matters a ****ton.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Okay, if you want to just ignore advice then I don't know what to tell you.

What advice am I ignoring?

 

[bomberfox]

What advice am I ignoring?

Investing in on the ground infrastructure of activists tends to go a long way in the long run instead of just investing in candidates. The DCCC tends to gatekeep efforts that are not explicitly tied to the candidates that they personally like.

 

[Jack Hays]

You make no sense because you equate fairness with the idea that over time unfairness affects everybody.

That is exactly correct.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please define What you mean by "fair". I can see that you and pamak have different definitions of the word and I do understand Pamaks' definition, but I do not get yours.

And you don't have to go into a complicated exposition over how your political system works and how it interacts between states, the goverment, the legal system, regulations and laws. Just give me the definition you have for the word.

exposition

Both sides have an equal opportunity to prevail, and the advantage shifts back and forth over time.

 

[pamak]

That is exactly correct.

Both sides have an equal opportunity to prevail, and the advantage shifts back and forth over time.

And it is narrow-minded partisan and irrational position.


It is irrational to claim any remedy for older voters by giving an advantage to future voters of the same party. The transfer of power can be slow for such "remedy" . Or since people often change parties during their life, they can end up receiving a consistent advantage or disadvantage. So, your claim seems to focus on the effects on the PARTY and not on the effects on the people.

More importanly, two wrongs do not make a right in our culture. Those who put institutions over parties realize that the focus must be on having the House reflect as close as possible the CURRENT will of the peope. THis is why the House is supposedly responsive by having elections every two years. . Having the House being out of sync in the past and now defeats the purpose of this institution. There is no "equal opportunity" to have a branch in the government to represet the CURRENT wiill of the people. Those who are incapable to see beyond the advantages that parties receive over time are partisan hacks who put partiess over the proper function of the repubic's institutions.

Finally, and equally important, partisan gerrymandering affects even voters of the dominant party who may not like the candidates and chrony political corruption in their party but they are stuck with representatives who control the redistrict process and choose their voters in a way that maximizes the chances of the party's dominant political figures remain in power.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Investing in on the ground infrastructure of activists tends to go a long way in the long run instead of just investing in candidates. The DCCC tends to gatekeep efforts that are not explicitly tied to the candidates that they personally like.

I always vote for the candidates who will make Alachua County, Florida, and America better if they win.

What is the DCCC?

 

[bomberfox]

I always vote for the candidates who will make Alachua County, Florida, and America better if they win.

What is the DCCC?

True but you also need on the ground infrastructure.

Join Our Campaign to Defeat Trump's Republican Agenda

DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way.

dccc.org

This org doesnt do much about infrastructure and on the ground activism (they also spam the hell out of your inbox)

 

[Jack Hays]

And it is narrow-minded partisan and irrational position.


It is irrational to claim any remedy for older voters by giving an advantage to future voters of the same party. The transfer of power can be slow for such "remedy" . Or since people often change parties during their life, they can end up receiving a consistent advantage or disadvantage. So, your claim seems to focus on the effects on the PARTY and not on the effects on the people.

More importanly, two wrongs do not make a right in our culture. Those who put institutions over parties realize that the focus must be on having the House reflect as close as possible the CURRENT will of the peope. THis is why the House is supposedly responsive by having elections every two years. . Having the House being out of sync in the past and now defeats the purpose of this institution. There is no "equal opportunity" to have a branch in the government to represet the CURRENT wiill of the people. Those who are incapable to see beyond the advantages that parties receive over time are partisan hacks who put partiess over the proper function of the repubic's institutions.

Finally, and equally important, partisan gerrymandering affects even voters of the dominant party who may not like the candidates and chrony political corruption in their party but they are stuck with representatives who control the redistrict process and choose their voters in a way that maximizes the chances of the party's dominant political figures remain in power.

It's fair. Deal with it.

 

[pamak]

It's fair. Deal with it.

As I said , I deal only with arguments and not with unsubstantated personal beliefs.

And it is funny that you seem so obsessed with your unsubstantiated belief of the long-term equalization of redistricting unfairness between Democrats and Republicans, immediately after an election where your state voted to switch the control of the redistricting process from the Democratically controlled legislature to an independent commission. And I would not be surprised if you also voted for that change considering the fact that Democrats are in power and you have a history of presenting conservative ideas in this forum.

Add also the fact that based on you profile, you want us to believe that you are an "indepedent" which makes your claim even more bizzare because obviously you cannot see beyond the effects that an unfair redistricting process has on the two parties, and you donot eve consider the effects on independents who may align with different parties over time.

 

[Jack Hays]

As I said , I deal only with arguments and not with unsubstantated personal beliefs.

And it is funny that you seem so obsessed with your unsubstantiated belief of the long-term equalization of redistricting unfairness between Democrats and Republicans, immediately after an election where your state voted to switch the control of the redistricting process from the Democratically controlled legislature to an independent commission. And I would not be surprised if you also voted for that change considering the fact that Democrats are in power and you have a history of presenting conservative ideas in this forum.
Add also the fact that based on you profile, you want us to believe that you are an "indepedent" which makes your claim even more bizzare because obviously you cannot see beyond the effects that an unfair redistricting process has on the two parties.

Redistricting has an equal effect on both parties. We call that fairness.

 

[pamak]

Redistricting has an equal effect on both parties. We call that fairness.

I was making arguments about the effects of unfair redistricting on actual people and on the institutions of the republic.

You just verify my point that you are JUST interested in parties even though you claim that you are an independent. And indepedent voters can change from one party to another.

Based on your silly belief, the effects of unfair redistricting on an independent voter who aligns with republicans when they are victims of unfair redistricting in oone election and who later aligns with the democrats when they are victims of unfair redistricting in another election are dismissed because the effects of such unfair redistricting on the parties is the same.

 

[Jack Hays]

I was making arguments about the effects of unfair redistricting on actual people and on the institutions of the republic.

You just verify my point that you are JUST interested in parties even though you claim that you are an independent. And indepedent voters can change from one party to another.

Based on your silly belief, the effects of unfair redistricting on an independent voter who aligns with republicans when they are victims of unfair redistricting in oone election and who later aligns with the democrats when they are victims of unfair redistricting in another election are dismissed because the effects of such unfair redistricting on the parties is the same.

Now you understand.

 

[pamak]

Now you understand.

I understod you from the beginning.

It is who is incapabe of understanding anything that is not related to partisan hackery...