Democrats receive more votes for the House than Republicans

[Darkwind]

The GOP won.

Get over it.

 

[Pinocchio]

This was the Rep strategy to win: slow the economy with obstruction, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The gerrymandering part worked in the House, with the resulting mess like the fiscal cliff and ongoing debt reduction, the later again being used to slow the economy. Now we are stuck with this albatross of a House.

We need to fix the law to prevent gerrymandering if we want a government that works.


Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering! | Mother Jones

Check out what Tom Brokaw had to say on Meet the Press.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/12/brokaw-the-system-is-rigged-152993.html

 

[daveman]

Remember, when Democrats win, it's clearly the will of the people.

When Republicans win, they stole the election.

Right, USMB lefties?

You seem to argue a point that was never made. Keep it up, if you argue with yourself you will always win (or lose, depends how you look at it)

The point was never made?

You need to get out more.

 

[daveman]

This was the Rep strategy to win: slow the economy with obstruction, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The gerrymandering part worked in the House, with the resulting mess like the fiscal cliff and ongoing debt reduction, the later again being used to slow the economy. Now we are stuck with this albatross of a House.

We need to fix the law to prevent gerrymandering if we want a government that works.


Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering! | Mother Jones

Check out what Tom Brokaw had to say on Meet the Press.

Brokaw: 'The system is rigged' - POLITICO.com

But it's only bad when Republicans do it.


Maryland

 

[Novus]

Novus, I know this argument really well because 3 leaders of 3 opposition parties who lost to the Conservatives banded together to try to overthrow an election up here in Canada.

Claiming more votes in total.

This is the "new" progressive argument. Yours just has a slightly different spin, but basically the purpose is the same.

To undo an election.

Thanks but I disagree. The rules were there and the election was won according to the rules. Undoing the election would be a divisive catastrophe. I did not ask for that.

But if we see a systemic problem, we can work a solution to change the rules before the next election so the outcome would be fair under any type of Republic or Democracy.
In todays political environment, district representation is absurd. We have to face the reality of national political parties and national elections. Forget districts.

Exactly what is the "systemic problem" that has your panties all in a ruffle? The fact that conservatives get a voice in government? Or just the fact that people who don't live in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago get a voice in government? Exactly whose lack of subjugation is the "systemic problem" you're trying to eliminate?

The systemic problem is that a minority has control over the minority. It is a color blind problem because it could be the other way tomorrow.
And it is a problem that could be fixed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Novus, I know this argument really well because 3 leaders of 3 opposition parties who lost to the Conservatives banded together to try to overthrow an election up here in Canada.

Claiming more votes in total.

This is the "new" progressive argument. Yours just has a slightly different spin, but basically the purpose is the same.

To undo an election.

Thanks but I disagree. The rules were there and the election was won according to the rules. Undoing the election would be a divisive catastrophe. I did not ask for that.

But if we see a systemic problem, we can work a solution to change the rules before the next election so the outcome would be fair under any type of Republic or Democracy.
In todays political environment, district representation is absurd. We have to face the reality of national political parties and national elections. Forget districts.

Until you and your ilk manage to get rid of the Constitution it will remain as is. Each State is given a set number of representatives based on the States Population. Each State Government is tasked with establishing districts with in the State numbering that number of Representatives. Just because California has millions more then Wyoming does not mean that Wyoming loses their representation. Just because New York has millions more then Connecticut does not mean Conn loses their representatives.

I suggest you learn HOW and WHY our Government works the way it does, rather then claim that a majority in a couple States should decide everything for everyone.

As for Gerrymandering, the worst offenders are the civil rights supporters that claim race matters more then common sense or reality. Check out some of the districts established to ensure black majorities. Then whine some more.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks but I disagree. The rules were there and the election was won according to the rules. Undoing the election would be a divisive catastrophe. I did not ask for that.

But if we see a systemic problem, we can work a solution to change the rules before the next election so the outcome would be fair under any type of Republic or Democracy.
In todays political environment, district representation is absurd. We have to face the reality of national political parties and national elections. Forget districts.

Exactly what is the "systemic problem" that has your panties all in a ruffle? The fact that conservatives get a voice in government? Or just the fact that people who don't live in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago get a voice in government? Exactly whose lack of subjugation is the "systemic problem" you're trying to eliminate?

The systemic problem is that a minority has control over the minority. It is a color blind problem because it could be the other way tomorrow.
And it is a problem that could be fixed.

Get a copy of the Constitution. Get someone to read it to you. Then show me where our laws exhibit ANY concern over minorities and majorities of ANY demographic, or where it is EVER indicated that the purpose of either House of Congress is to 1) reflect any sort of apocryphal "popular vote" of the nation at large, or 2) reflect any sort of even division between groups, particularly those formed by YOUR personal perceptions of the world.

The House of Representatives - and the Senate, too, while we're on the subject - look exactly like they're intended to look, if one is intelligent and informed enough to understand what those Houses are, and what they're intended to do. Clearly, you continue to reveal to us that you know fuck-all about this country, its government, or its history.

I will never understand why some people are so proud of how ignorant they are, but I swear it's like badge of honor to them.