An Idea

[pknopp]

To get elected to Congress requires a lot of planning, skill, and intellect. They aren’t as dumb as they pretend to be. Trust me.

I don't think I will.

Their constituents are just dumb and they represent them well. They are just good at their job. They keep their job by getting elected by idiots.

Getting caught getting felt up in a theater doesn't take a lot of smarts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

At the end of the day though, no shifting the selection of the President to the House wouldn't reduce cheating.

It does mean that the individual Representatives would be able to increase the level of bribes they demand for the sale of their vote.

WW

 

[presonorek]

"funny" and "suspicious" are qualitative terms to describe something which, once the politicians are removed, based on population density, natural political barriers (county, city boundaries) and nature (rives, mountains, etc.)

I think it's interesting that the OP is asking about reducing cheating, but when the largest method of cheating is brought up it suddenly doesn't matter.

WW

You can draw the goofiest lines imaginable but if it contains the same amount of people in that funny looking area then the overall outcome will be the same. You can draw a line for the benefit of one person but you can’t draw a line that gives one party or one ideology an advantage.

Let’s say the nerds draw a district that looks like an ice cream cone, Mickey Mouse, or a salamander. It’s still gonna raise some eyebrows and illicit lawsuits on the same ground. If a solution isn’t offered with a problem then it isn’t a problem. It’s just reality. Gerrymandering will never stop being discussed because there is no solution to it. It’s just an interesting phenomenon.

 

[presonorek]

Getting caught getting felt up in a theater doesn't take a lot of smarts.

You are right. Not anymore.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can draw the goofiest lines imaginable but if it contains the same amount of people in that funny looking area then the overall outcome will be the same. You can draw a line for the benefit of one person but you can’t draw a line that gives one party or one ideology an advantage.

This post goes to show that you don't understand the concept of Gerrymandering at all.

Because "funny" lines is not what Gerrymandering is as many county lines and natural boundaries would look "funny".

Gerrymandering is about the exact opposite of what you state, it's all about drawing lines that either "enhance" a parties political power or "reduce" the opponents political power by basing voting districts on party affiliation. In other words trying to stuff as many of the opposing parties voters into as few districts as possible to lessen their power in the legislature (and Congress).

And yes, you can draw lines that gives one party or one ideology an advantage.

WW

 

[presonorek]

So, Lauren Boebert gets to select a President and I don’t

You can too. Just get elected to Congress. You can also pick the congressman that will select the president. It just seems if a presidential election is too big to manage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can too. Just get elected to Congress. You can also pick the congressman that will select the president. It just seems if a presidential election is too big to manage.

[SAID IN GOOD HUMOR]

It's not the Presidential election that is to big to manage as actually the election is broken down into smaller chunks with each State running their own. Which is then chunked out to localities.

The real reason Presidential selections are to big to manage is we let the assholes declare and start running 2 years before. Limit Presidential campaigns to 6 month so the public doesn't have to be bombarded with it constantly.



WW

[/SAID IN GOOD HUMOR]

 

[rightwinger]

Gerrymandering is about the exact opposite of what you state, it's all about drawing lines that either "enhance" a parties political power or "reduce" the opponents political power by basing voting districts on party affiliation.

Candidates selecting the voters instead of voters selecting the candidates

 

[presonorek]

This post goes to show that you don't understand the concept of Gerrymandering at all.

Because "funny" lines is not what Gerrymandering is as many county lines and natural boundaries would look "funny".

Gerrymandering is about the exact opposite of what you state, it's all about drawing lines that either "enhance" a parties political power or "reduce" the opponents political power by basing voting districts on party affiliation. In other words trying to stuff as many of the opposing parties voters into as few districts as possible to lessen their power in the legislature (and Congress).

And yes, you can draw lines that gives one party or one ideology an advantage.

WW

View attachment 863688

If I draw a line that eliminates a city that votes republican then I can get a democrat to win in that district. If that democrat is my buddy then yes. That could totally happen but those republicans that I drew out of a district will create a district on the other side that will vote Republican. Gerrymandering helped that guy get elected but I created a losing district next to it. Unless you are drawing districts without the sufficient number of people in them then it is a zero sum game. Only individual players can gain advantage. You can’t change the overall outcome.

 

[rightwinger]

If I draw a line that eliminates a city that votes republican then I can get a democrat to win in that district. If that democrat is my buddy then yes. That could totally happen but those republicans that I drew out of a district will create a district on the other side that will vote Republican. Gerrymandering helped that guy get elected but I created a losing district next to it. Unless you are drawing districts without the sufficient number of people in them then it is a zero sum game. Only individual players can gain advantage. You can’t change the overall outcome.

Again you don’t understand the mathematics of Gerrymandering

You can slice the city into small parts and combine those parts with larger areas of the opposing city

You can put all of your opponents into one district, leaving the others for yourself

 

[presonorek]

Again you don’t understand the mathematics of Gerrymandering

You can slice the city into small parts and combine those parts with larger areas of the opposing city

You can put all of your opponents into one district, leaving the others for yourself

If you have 38 republican districts and 37 democrat districts then you can make the map look as crazy as you want. You will end up with 38 republican districts and 37 democrat districts. Granted, you can draw a district for Joe Johnson the democrat in district 29 if you want by carving out the republicans. That still creates a Republican district bordering the goofy shaped district 29.

Gerrymandering will be discussed 1,000 years from now. It’s easy to get people worked up over it because it is intriguing. It’s a non issue. As long as every district has the same number of people in it then the outcome is identical.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you have 38 republican districts and 37 democrat districts then you can make the map look as crazy as you want. You will end up with 38 republican districts and 37 democrat districts. Granted, you can draw a district for Joe Johnson the democrat in district 29 if you want by carving out the republicans. That still creates a Republican district bordering the goofy shaped district 29.

Gerrymandering will be discussed 1,000 years from now. It’s easy to get people worked up over it because it is intriguing. It’s a non issue. As long as every district has the same number of people in it then the outcome is identical.

Again you are demonstrating (not to be negative) a lack of under understanding about what Gerrymandering is. It is specifically for drawing lines based on party affiliation.

So if you have 38 R districts and 37 D districts. When the R's are in power they redraw the lines so that D votes are concentrated in fewer districts. The goal is to create fewer "D" districts and dilute the "D" vote in "R" districts. The desired outcome is to then have - for example - 41 R districts and 34 D districts.

If you don't understand Gerrymandering if you have 38 R and 37 D a change in one district shifts the power of the Legislature R to D. However if the districts are Gerrymandered to 41 R and 37 D and a single district flips, the R's still retain control of the legislature.

Believe me, the politicians and political strategist fully understand the use of Gerrymandering to retain power even if they were to end up on the minority in terms of population.

WW

 

[presonorek]

Again you are demonstrating (not to be negative) a lack of under understanding about what Gerrymandering is. It is specifically for drawing lines based on party affiliation.

So if you have 38 R districts and 37 D districts. When the R's are in power they redraw the lines so that D votes are concentrated in fewer districts. The goal is to create fewer "D" districts and dilute the "D" vote in "R" districts. The desired outcome is to then have - for example - 41 R districts and 34 D districts.

If you don't understand Gerrymandering if you have 38 R and 37 D a change in one district shifts the power of the Legislature R to D. However if the districts are Gerrymandered to 41 R and 37 D and a single district flips, the R's still retain control of the legislature.

Believe me, the politicians and political strategist fully understand the use of Gerrymandering to retain power even if they were to end up on the minority in terms of population.

WW

I could do it if you allowed me to create dots but I couldn’t do it with whole districts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I could do it if you allowed me to create dots but I couldn’t do it with whole districts.

In some state they do create non-contiguous districts, but most examples of Gerrymandering use contiguous lines.

Here is an example of Gerrymandering where parts of the district are not connected.

Here is an example of contiguous connections, but with the lines drawn to capture an unrepresentative population into a single district.

WW

 

[presonorek]

In some state they do create non-contiguous districts, but most examples of Gerrymandering use contiguous lines.

View attachment 863706


Here is an example of Gerrymandering where parts of the district are not connected.

View attachment 863707

Here is an example of contiguous connections, but with the lines drawn to capture an unrepresentative population into a single district.

WW

It would be very easy if all districts were 350,000 and one district had 351,240. I could go to all the districts that had a tad more than 350,000 and make little dots and attach them to another district. If the districts are whole then I couldn’t do it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You couldn’t, but the politicians drawing the lines for the examples I provided sure did.

WW

 

[Independent thinker]

Wouldn’t there be less cheating if we just let the House of Representatives elect a president every four years starting in August 2029? We can elect the president the normal way in 2024. In 2028 we will elect an intentional temporary president to serve 19 months.

I’m not saying you agree that we should do this. I am asking if it would just reduce the cheating.

LOL. Translation: You are expecting Democrats to retake the House. Yeah, that's all we need is crooked biased political House members who abuse their power for political reasons electing the president. Why do you want to take democracy away and suppress the votes of over 150 million people?

 

[presonorek]

LOL. Translation: You are expecting Democrats to retake the House. Yeah, that's all we need is crooked biased political House members who abuse their power for political reasons electing the president. Why do you want to take democracy away and suppress the votes of over 150 million people?

I would like to remove psychological warfare from presidential campaigns. People get so stupid over the selection of one guy that doesn’t even matter. People remain stupid years after the election is over. I would like presidential races to look more like governor races, senate races, or house races. I like when people are disappointed that their candidate loses. I don’t want them to go into a decade long period of maniac depression or hyper schizophrenia or some sort of hallucinogenic trans where they think the whole world is going to explode if the wrong candidate wins. That shit ain’t good for our society. Just say, “ah man I like dogs better than cats. Shoot.” Something like that. Have you noticed your mentally retarded fellow man that was mentally healthy before his favorite presidential candidate lost an election 12 years ago?

 

[Independent thinker]

I would like to remove psychological warfare from presidential campaigns. People get so stupid over the selection of one guy that doesn’t even matter. People remain stupid years after the election is over. I would like presidential races to look more like governor races, senate races, or house races. I like when people are disappointed that their candidate loses. I don’t want them to go into a decade long period of maniac depression or hyper schizophrenia or some sort of hallucinogenic trans where they think the whole world is going to explode if the wrong candidate wins. That shit ain’t good for our society. Just say, “ah man I like dogs better than cats. Shoot.” Something like that. Have you noticed your mentally retarded fellow man that was mentally healthy before his favorite presidential candidate lost an election 12 years ago?

So, you are against democracy? That's that thing where people vote.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you really want to improve the functioning of elected government...

I'd suggest dealing with incumbency (which IMHO) is the real problem.

WW