• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats gear up to fight gerrymandering after state House losses

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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Dems are now scrambling to invoke the "fairness" plea now that they've suffered losses in most arenas in this election season.

The Socialist State of Washington went through that gauntlet in 2018, we’ll coast this year. We’re still rioting in SEATTLE.
 
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.
Gerrymandering at this time in our history is an abomination. If a willful autocracy is in play the USA is in dire straits.
 
Gerrymandering at this time in our history is an abomination. If a willful autocracy is in play the USA is in dire straits.
It is no such thing. In fact, I'm not sure there is a way to divvy up districts without being accused of gerrymandering. There's no way to carve up a state and have every faction "win."
 
The Dems are now scrambling to invoke the "fairness" plea now that they've suffered losses in most arenas in this election season.

About time, I just can't comprehend how anyone can accept gerrymandering as part of a process in a country calling itself "free"
 
Democrats ability to fight gerrymandering is inhibited by their obligation to continue to support majority black districts.
 
Democrats: Gerrymandering is wrong. We're going to take you to court.

Also Democrats: You didn't gerrymander enough majority minority districts. We're going to take you to court.
 
There is no chance whatsoever of that happening in an off year election and you know it.
When you allow people ease of access to their rights as citizens, they vote. Your not one to lecture me about anything bub :)
 
Democrats should have fought a much tougher campaign for House districts, state assemblies, and governorships.

This is where Democrats are losing the long-view battles. We might see this again in Georgia on January 5.

Stop being nice and always taking the "high road" and do whatever it takes to start winning these down-ballot elections.
Dem lost seats because they failed to serve the people who elected them. Dems have NEVER taken the “high road” - the lied, cheated, stole.
 
Dem lost seats because they failed to serve the people who elected them. Dems have NEVER taken the “high road” - the lied, cheated, stole.
Good gawd, you've lost it.
 
Back
Top Bottom