Candycorn's Idea for Changing the Way We Elect Candidates For President.

[Correll]

More than a dozen.

Republicans blocked the latest.

Republicans voted against independent redistricting in 2021​

View attachment 1189955
PolitiFact
https://www.politifact.com › aug › gavin-newsom › cali...
Aug 21, 2025 — California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks to counter Texas Republicans' congressional redistricting efforts.

It passed the House with all Democrats but one supporting it, and all Republicans voting against it, with two absences. It did not advance in the Senate.


In Arizona, for example, Republicans opposed Proposition 106 in 2000, which established the state’s independent redistricting commission. They said the power to draw districts will be given to "unelected, unaccountable lawyers."

See above.

Destroying democracy.

Exposing your party's lies and corruption.

Eat shit and die, NAZI.

You pretend you want to work with me, then you call me a nazi.


You are just looking for an excuse to have a hissy fit, becuase you know that some portion of the population will interprete your emotional... show, as evidence that there must be something wrong with my behavior.


And thus, you trick people into supporting your partisan side.

That is all this is.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You pretend you want to work with me, then you call me a nazi.

Not anymore.

You are just looking for an excuse to have a hissy fit, becuase you know that some portion of the population will interprete your emotional... show, as evidence that there must be something wrong with my behavior.

There is.

And thus, you trick people into supporting your partisan side.

That is all this is.

As you want politicians to choose their voters is 'trickery"?

 

[Correll]

Not anymore.

Oh? You pretending that at the start of this thread, you had a reasonable hope that we could work together on this and just during this thread, you discovered that we, maga, your political enemies are "nazis" and thus you cannot work with us?

Or, Are you just a shit talker, as I said, putting on a little show of manufactured outrage, to dupe the gullible,

as I said.

There is.

As you want politicians to choose their voters is 'trickery"?

YOu want to address this, start working toward an atmosphere of good faith and bi-partisan respect.

Until then, deal with the fact that we will be merciless to you. As payback for how you were merciless to us.

Hell, we really haven't even come close to starting serious payback, considering the hundreds of riots and several murders you have done to us.

My hope is that this is just teh beginning and we give you many more reasons to cry before this is over.

 

[candycorn]

If this stuff is even to be implemented it would require a time of low partisan bitterness and a good faith bi-partisan effort.


That is impossible, while your side is calling my side racists and nazis.


When you call someone a nazis, you are stating that you are their enemy, committed to destroying them.

This is not a time for good faith bi-partisan efforts.


This is a time of bitter partisan conflict. One of us has to be utterly defeated, if not destroyed.

It is retarded of you to pretend to not get this.

Stop acting as racists and nazis, perhaps.

 

[Lisa558]

Nuthin fancy rated this as fake news.


What's Fake? That your side hasn't been in power dozens of times since the invetion of gerrymandering and could have changed it then?

or that teh only reason you are crying like a little girl, is because we are using our power effectively to advance our agenda?


Or that you should go **** yourself?

Here again we see the hypocrisy of Democrats. They have always tried to gerrymander their way into Congressional seats. There was an especially egregious case a few years back in Maryland, where the Dmocrats carved out a district that was intended to include liberals and exclude conservatives.

5 Things to Know About the Maryland Partisan-Gerrymandering Case

Five things to know about the important Maryland partisan-gerrymandering case slated for oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Here again we see the hypocrisy of Democrats. They have always tried to gerrymander their way into Congressional seats. There was an especially egregious case a few years back in Maryland, where the Dmocrats carved out a district that was intended to include liberals and exclude conservatives.

5 Things to Know About the Maryland Partisan-Gerrymandering Case

Five things to know about the important Maryland partisan-gerrymandering case slated for oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.brennancenter.org

Regardless of which party does it, Americans across the political spectrum agree by wide margins that gerrymandering is bad. In 2013, a Harris poll found that seven in ten Americans agreed that those who stand to benefit from drawing electoral lines should not have a say in the way those lines are drawn. This view cut across partisan lines, with 74 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Democrats, and 71 percent of independents in agreement.

It's still true today.
Politicians shouldn't be drawing congressional districts.

 

[candycorn]

Regardless of which party does it, Americans across the political spectrum agree by wide margins that gerrymandering is bad. In 2013, a Harris poll found that seven in ten Americans agreed that those who stand to benefit from drawing electoral lines should not have a say in the way those lines are drawn. This view cut across partisan lines, with 74 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Democrats, and 71 percent of independents in agreement.

It's still true today.
Politicians shouldn't be drawing congressional districts.

Very true.

The people are supposed to pick the representatives.

Through gerrymandering, the representatves are selecting the people.

 

[dblack]

Very true.

The people are supposed to pick the representatives.

Through gerrymandering, the representatves are selecting the people.

Multi rep districts do away with the gerrymandering problem. Just like ranked choice voting and open primaries do away with the lesser-of-two-evils problem. But the major parties fight these kinds of reform tooth and nail. So, we'll need to dump them first.

 

[Correll]

Because, it is DUMBASS.

Except everything I said is clearly true.

 

[Correll]

Stop acting as racists and nazis, perhaps.

And there we have it.

All I want to do now, is destroy you.


So, your attempt at getting a bi-partisan effort to reform the practice of gerry mandering, has failed badly.


Do you realize that your behavior is the problem?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

And there we have it.

All I want to do now, is destroy you.


So, your attempt at getting a bi-partisan effort to reform the practice of gerry mandering, has failed badly.

Because of you and your cult.

Bi-partisan "Effort"?
There shouldn't be ANY "partisan" or politician........involved.

Do you realize that your behavior is the problem?

That's you.

 

[Correll]

Because of you and your cult.

Bi-partisan "Effort"?
There shouldn't be ANY "partisan" or politician........involved.

That's you.

Hey, this thread is about your idea about getting rid of gerrymandering.


I want to be clear.

In an environment of good faith and partisan respect, I would be happy to have this debate and would support a number of possible solutions.


BUT, today, in the currect situation of violent political conflict and unrest, with people dying in the streets,

I am dismissing it as a partisan ploy.


YOu want to change that, work towards improving the tone of hte political discourse in this country.

Until then, I will fight you on EVERY FRONT.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Hey, this thread is about your idea about getting rid of gerrymandering.

I just told you, one.

I want to be clear.

In an environment of good faith and partisan respect, I would be happy to have this debate and would support a number of possible solutions.


BUT, today, in the currect situation of violent political conflict and unrest, with people dying in the streets,

I am dismissing it as a partisan ploy.

Yeah, yours.
Partisanship is the problem.

YOu want to change that, work towards improving the tone of hte political discourse in this country.

Until then, I will fight you on EVERY FRONT.

Of course you will, just like your cult does year after year

 

[Correll]

I just told you, one.

Yeah, yours.
Partisanship is the problem.

Of course you will, just like your cult does year after year

Hey, you want to work with me adn my side on changing the rules of the game,

we need some reason to think that you are serious about this, and it is not just a way to get us to stop using the system as it exists, to advance our agenda.


Right now, you have less than zero credibilty with us.


So, until something changes, that's where we are at.


Perhaps if you called us some more vile names, that would make us want to work with you.

Try that for a few years, and see if it works.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Hey, you want to work with me adn my side on changing the rules of the game,

NO, you dumb shit.

we need some reason to think that you are serious about this, and it is not just a way to get us to stop using the system as it exists, to advance our agenda.


Right now, you have less than zero credibilty with us.

BFD.

So, until something changes, that's where we are at.


Perhaps if you called us some more vile names, that would make us want to work with you.

Try that for a few years, and see if it works.

WHY are you picking sides?

That's my entire point.
Their shouldn't BE any.
You keep looking for partisan politicians for a solution.
Why do you keep looking to them, for a solution?

 

[candycorn]

NO, you dumb shit.

BFD.

WHY are you picking sides?

That's my entire point.
Their shouldn't BE any.
You keep looking for partisan politicians for a solution.
Why do you keep looking to them, for a solution?

You're 100% correct. I think that most on the right are so conditioned to believe that they are the victim that they can't look at anything without taking on that posture. If a kitten showed up on their doorstep hungry and cold, they'd wonder what the kitten's ulterior motives were for choosing their doorstep.

The system I described in the OP was one I brought up several times in the past.

From 2020:

The electoral college--in it's current form--isn't going anywhere anytime soon.​

​

That doesn't mean it shouldn't. We need the Electoral College; without it the large cities on the coasts will decide the elections using the National Popular Vote format where the person with the plurality becomes President.​

​

One thing that proponents of the NPV never address is this: What happens if we have 3 viable candidates...or 5 viable candidates...that get 20% of the vote each? You really want a President who gets 29% of the vote?​

​

So I think the winning position is to keep the EC in it's current form but add in the stipulation that the President Elect get a plurality of the Popular Vote as well. If both the threshold of the EC majority of 270 AND the plurality of the popular vote are not met, the remedies we have in place currently where the Congress gets involved are activated.​

​

I'll be happy to say this again if Biden is declared the winner of the EC--that we need to change the system that elected the person for whom I am voting. Its really not a political thing with me. Its more of a right and wrong thing. The ordinary voters should have a direct say in who becomes President and the notion of the majority (or at least the plurality) deciding should be addressed.​

From 2016:

I feel that the President Elect should win both the Electoral Vote majority and a plurality of the popular vote​

​

​

From 2015:

What is wrong with requiring the President Elect get 270 (Majority) of EVs along with the plurality (more than anyone else) of the Pop vote?​

​

From 2012:

Exactly as it is now except you must also win the plurality of popular votes as well as the electoral college. If not, the House picks POTUS and the Senate picks VPOTUS; as identified by the amendment that sets up the system. At no point should we ever have a president that isn't elected by the will of the voters. Our Constitution is actually pretty astute on this matter. If the EC can't decide on the POTUS, the House does but it's members were elected by popular vote as well so the people are, in effect, still deciding.​