• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats gear up to fight gerrymandering after state House losses

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,884
Reaction score
28,088
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I understod you from the beginning.

It is who is incapabe to understand anything that is not related to partisan hackery...
No. The parties are adversaries. The system gives each an equal chance.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
1,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
No. The parties are adversaries. The system gives each an equal chance.
And independen (and other ) voters can change parties from one election to another. So, it is STUPID to focus on the effects of unfair redistricting on parties and not on the effects on people and on the institutions which serve the republic!

Again, based on your stupid belief of what it means to be "fair," , the effects of unfair redistricting on an independent voter who aligns with the GOP when that party is the victim of gerrymandering is countered if the same independent voter later aligns with the Democratic party when that party is the victim of gerrymandering because the effects of such unfair redistricting on the parties is the same.
 
Last edited:

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,884
Reaction score
28,088
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And independen (and other ) voters can change parties from one election to another. So, it is STUPID to focus on the effects of unfair redistricting on parties and not on the effects on people and on the institutions which serve the republic!

Again, based on your stupid belief of what it means to be "fair," , the effects of unfair redistricting on an independent voter who aligns with the GOP when that party is the victim of gerrymandering is countered if the same independent voter later aligns with the Democratic party is victim of gerrymandering in another election because the effects of such unfair redistricting on the parties is the same.
Redistricting does not focus on parties; parties focus on redistricting. The difference is important.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
1,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Redistricting does not focus on parties; parties focus on redistricting. The difference is important.
To gain party advantages. Nothing of what you try to say changes my point

Again, based on your stupid belief of what it means to be "fair," , the effects of unfair redistricting on an independent voter who aligns with the GOP when that party is the victim of gerrymandering is countered by the effect on the same independent voter when he later aligns with a Democratic party that becomes the new victim of gerrymandering in another election because the effects of such unfair redistricting on the parties is the same.

Fot those who respect the republic's constitution, and its institutions this is what is fair:

The House is the ONLY branch of the government that represents the majoritarian will. What is fair is to have a House that represents as close as possible the current will of the majority of the PEOPLE and not the will of some career politicians in parties who have vested interests in fixing the House races to their party's advantage and win even when those parties fail to earn the trust of the majority of people!
 
Last edited:

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,884
Reaction score
28,088
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To gain party advantages. Nothing of what you try to say changes my point

Again, based on your stupid belief of what it means to be "fair," , the effects of unfair redistricting on an independent voter who aligns with the GOP when that party is the victim of gerrymandering is countered by the effect on the same independent voter when he later aligns with a Democratic party that becomes the new victim of gerrymandering in another election because the effects of such unfair redistricting on the parties is the same.

Fot those who respect the republic's constitution, and its institutions this is what is fair:

The House is the ONLY branch of the government that represents the majoritarian will. What is fair is to have a House that represents as close as possible the current will of the majority of the PEOPLE and not the will of some career politicians in parties who have vested interests in fixing the House races to their party's advantage and win even when those parties fail to earn the trust of the majority of people!
I look forward to your movement to amend the Constitution.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
1,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I look forward to your movement to amend the Constitution.
The Constitution does not even articulate the consequences for a president who refuses to abide by a Surpeme Court decision (or refuses to accept that he lost in a fair election) . In other words, the Constitution offers opportunities for fairness but it is the people whose actions will determine the level of fairness in the political field. Simpletons who are made to believe in absurdities regarding the notion of "fairness" cannot be saved by any piece of paper and societies cannot be fair just because there is a constitution.

I am looking forward to hearing a reasonable argument from your part instead of half-ass baked comments.
 
Last edited:

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,884
Reaction score
28,088
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Constitution does not even articulate the consequences for a president who refuses to abide by a Surpeme Court decision (or refuses to accept that he lost in a fair election) . In other words, the Constitution offers opportunities for fairness but it is the people whose actions will determine the level of fairness in the political field. Simpletons who are made to believe in absurdities regarding the notion of "fairness" cannot be saved by any piece of paper and societies cannot be fair just because there is a constitution.

I am looking forward to hearing a reasonable argument from your part instead of half-ass baked comments.
I have already won this argument. No amount of your ill temper can change that.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
1,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I have already won this argument. No amount of your ill temper can change that.
If you actually follow the comments in this thread, you will realize that it is only you who thinks that you have offered aarguments to support your position.. I and apparently other people here see that you only offer unreasonable personal opinions. But if it makes your fragile ego sleep better at night, I will not challenge you claims regarding who won. I save my ammo for claims relative to the issue we discuss, such as the essence of fairness in elections.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,884
Reaction score
28,088
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you actually follow the comments in this thread, you will realize that it is only you who thinks that you have offered aarguments to support your position.. I and apparently other people here see that you only offer unreasonable personal opinions. But if it makes your fragile ego sleep better at night, I will not challenge you claims regarding who won. I save my ammo for claims relative to the issue we discuss, such as the essence of fairness in elections.
As you wish.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
423
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I would not expect the Democrats to fight too hard to prevent gerrymandering; without it there wouldn't be much of a Congressional Black Caucus.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
1,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I would not expect the Democrats to fight too hard to prevent gerrymandering; without it there wouldn't be much of a Congressional Black Caucus.
Sometimes it happens even in states which are firmly controlled by one party (CA and AZ are some examples). Often the motivatio comes from those moderates within a party who want to challenge the incumbents. A solid blue or red district does not benefit more moderate candidates. The latter become more attractive when the people know that the districts are more competitive and require convincing morre people from the other side of the ideological divide.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
423
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sometimes it happens even in states which are firmly controlled by one party (CA and AZ are some examples). Often the motivatio comes from those moderates within a party who want to challenge the incumbents. A solid blue or red district does not benefit more moderate candidates. The latter become more attractive when the people know that the districts are more competitive and require convincing morre people from the other side of the ideological divide.
Gerrymandering is the application of governmental authority to one's own political advantage. In that way it's nothing new and certainly nothing remarkable. Viewed in the abstract, it's as old as government.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
1,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Gerrymandering is the application of governmental authority to one's own political advantage. In that way it's nothing new and certainly nothing remarkable. Viewed in the abstract, it's as old as government.
Completely irrelevant to my point...

Yes, , some problems in goverment are as old as its existence.
 
Top Bottom