Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.
Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.
Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.
I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.
The dancing men signifies that was a "tongue in cheek" comment by myself, Boiler.
I don't foresee a law like that ever being passed but I'm still not sure that it isn't a good idea. When the people who know you the best don't support you as a candidate then should the rest of us feel good about you?
Wrong, he lost because of SCOTUS
"
In one of the closest contests in U.S. history, the 2000 presidential election between Democratic Vice-President Al Gore and Republican governor of Texas George W. Bush (hereafter referred to as Bush Jr. to distinguish him from his father who was also a president), the final outcome hinged on how the vote went in Florida. Independent investigations in that state revealed serious irregularities directed mostly against ethnic minorities and low-income residents who usually voted heavily Democratic. Some 36,000 newly registered voters were turned away because their names had never been added to the voter rolls by Florida’s secretary of state Kathleen Harris. By virtue of the office she held, Harris presided over the state’s election process while herself being an active member of the Bush Jr. state-wide campaign committee. Other voters were turned away because they were declared--almost always incorrectly--“convicted felons.” In several Democratic precincts, state officials closed the polls early, leaving lines of would-be voters stranded.
Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts. During the recount, GOP agitators shipped in from Washington D.C. by the Republican national leadership stormed the Dale County Canvassing Board, punched and kicked one of the officials, shouted and banged on their office doors, and generally created a climate of intimidation that caused the board to abandon its recount and accept the dubious pro-Bush tally.1"
Libs/Dems/Commies always has some excuse for losing. No matter how lame ass they can be.
Remember Albert the Bore Gore lost because of HANGING CHADS?
they have lost all pride and honor when it come to bowing down for their party
party over country is their motto
Did you just quote Michael Parenti as a reliable source? Come on...get serious!
You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.
Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.
Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.
I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.
Given the state of California compared to that of Wyoming, Nyvin...one could make the case that we would be better off as a nation if Wyoming were even MORE represented than they are and California was represented LESS then they are!
(dancing man alert!...sarcasm implied!!!)
You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.
Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.
Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.
I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.
You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.
Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.
Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.
I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.
With as badly as you liberals are screwing up big States like California, Nyvin...I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time until tons of people who live there start moving in droves to places like Wyoming.
if it wasn't for gerrymandering & voter suppression, the GObP would've been a permanent minority-status party years ago.
In other words yes, the republicans had a State wide majority in election. You are aware that if one precinct is full of liberals and 9 are majority republican that Republicans win even if the one precinct has a total vote of 100 percent liberal? Right?The ONLY way Republicans could set boundaries in a State is if the State had elected them the Majority. SO you are admitting that in those States they had a majority BEFORE any boundaries were changed."In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."
What is gerrymandering - Quora
In a wave election of 2010...frankly the only election the GOP has won in the last 8 years
You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.
Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.
Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.
I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.
With as badly as you liberals are screwing up big States like California, Nyvin...I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time until tons of people who live there start moving in droves to places like Wyoming.
Do you do anything besides troll?
Hey retard the only way a Party can set the states precincts is if they have a majority in BOTH Houses.if it wasn't for gerrymandering & voter suppression, the GObP would've been a permanent minority-status party years ago.
Pointing out that more people have been leaving California than are coming in (for the first time in it's history!) is "trolling", Nyvin? You guy's do HATE whenever someone points out that you progressives have stubbed your toes...don't you?
In other words yes, the republicans had a State wide majority in election. You are aware that if one precinct is full of liberals and 9 are majority republican that Republicans win even if the one precinct has a total vote of 100 percent liberal? Right?
Pointing out that more people have been leaving California than are coming in (for the first time in it's history!) is "trolling", Nyvin? You guy's do HATE whenever someone points out that you progressives have stubbed your toes...don't you?
If I change the state names to "Texas" and "Vermont" will it help you stay on topic???
In other words yes, the republicans had a State wide majority in election. You are aware that if one precinct is full of liberals and 9 are majority republican that Republicans win even if the one precinct has a total vote of 100 percent liberal? Right?
Yep, the GOP has geography and gimics on it's side...Democrats have people on theirs.
I used to live in Colorado and witnessed the flood of transplants from California that wanted to live someplace
Pointing out that more people have been leaving California than are coming in (for the first time in it's history!) is "trolling", Nyvin? You guy's do HATE whenever someone points out that you progressives have stubbed your toes...don't you?
If I change the state names to "Texas" and "Vermont" will it help you stay on topic???
Why would you want to change the topic? Do you dispute that California has messed itself up so badly that for the first time in it's history more people are leaving than are coming in?
I don't blame you a bit for that. Holding up California as a shining example of what Progressive policies will bring wouldn't be something I'd want to get into either if I was a liberal!
In other words yes, the republicans had a State wide majority in election. You are aware that if one precinct is full of liberals and 9 are majority republican that Republicans win even if the one precinct has a total vote of 100 percent liberal? Right?
Yep, the GOP has geography and gimics on it's side...Democrats have people on theirs.
You can continue to flood the country with immigrants that you think will vote Democratic, Nyvin but I'm convinced that at some point all those Hispanic votes that you progressives are gleefully chalking up on your side of the ledger are going to come to the conclusion that the policies that you espouse are ruining the very reason they wanted to come to America in the first place. When this is no longer the land of opportunity...we will have reached that point.
A new survey conducted by Lake Research Partners found that strong majorities of Latino registered voters supported access to legal abortion
