DiscussMormonism.com

Even though Republicans won more seats in the House of Reps, the Democrats received the majority of votes. How is this possible? The answer will surprise you. Or not. From Real Clear Politics:

In Pennsylvania, the Gerrymander of the Decade?

This is just one of the many ways in which the morally bankrupt Republicans have tried to disenfranchise American voters by suppressing their voice.

This is among the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posts you've ever made here.

Upset that the Republicans are now fighting fire with fire and using classic, longstanding Democratic redistricting tactics to ensure continued incumbency? Gerrymandering had already become a classic Democrat strategy at least twenty years ago, and there was a great deal of hubbub about it then.

I'm not saying I support this kind of thing at all, but this Chris Matthews say-anything-for-my-cult-leader tendentiousness is wondrous and awful to behold.

In any case, its the Democrats who actually try to steal elections in the good old bannana republic kind of way.

Remember Gore v Bush? Ever hear of ACORN? Ever hear of Moter Voter?

The Democrats do the same. No surprise here.

For example, in Utah, the Republicans carve up the districts each with some territory in the Salt Lake area. The argument is to have districts balanced with urban, suburban, and rural but it dilutes the Democrat vote because they're pretty much all in SLC.

The Democrats cry and whine for an SLC only district and if they were in power, that is exactly what they would do. Their rationale is to have a homogenous district representing just urban. But that would plainly result in a guaranteed district for them.

The bottom line is gerrymandering goes with the territory. It's not that I support gerrymandering, it's that there is no way guarantee the other party won't do it either and we know they do it automatically. The Republicans have been the compromisers for decades. Let the Democrats compromise now if they can.

Maryland Voters Win Legal Victory Against Democrat Gerrymandering

Kevin Graham wrote:Even though Republicans won more seats in the House of Reps, the Democrats received the majority of votes. How is this possible? The answer will surprise you. Or not. From Real Clear Politics:

In Pennsylvania, the Gerrymander of the Decade?

This is just one of the many ways in which the morally bankrupt Republicans have tried to disenfranchise American voters by suppressing their voice.

If you think republicans are the only one doing this come look at the districts where I live. The democrats here excel at it.

Sheesh Kev, think you would be happy your man won. But your left wing religion just never rests anymore. How come?

I didn't say the Democrats haven't done this in the past. I'm saying this election season is far more significant than the Right wants to admit. They are clinging to the fact that the Democrats still failed to win the majority seats in the House as evidence that the American people didn't completely endorse Obama and his first term. But the fact is the majority of votes went to the Democrats but the Republicans won a majority of the seats by an overwhelming margin, only because of redistricting. You can say Democrats have done this in the past, but that is beside the point. The point is that it wouldn't have really mattered since the real injustice here is that the American voters have been suppressed to a staggering degree. Just think of what it would mean if America got what it really wanted, a Democrat Congress along with a Democrat President. Redistricting just gave us more gridlock.

I think redistricting should be based on population, which occasionally shifts within a state. I'm sure that is how it was originally intended, so the voice of the people would have more significance. That's why California has 58 electoral votes and Alaska only 3. The example pointed to in Maryland is really insignificant as it would be reshaping districts according to population sizes, which ALWAYS benefits Democrats anyway. That is why Metropolitan cities almost always go for Democrats while the rural areas tend to vote Repub. Besides, Maryland was already a blue state.

Consider the fact that Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points, but Democrats carried only 5 of the state’s 18 congressional seats. Obama won Virginia, and Democrats took only 3 of 11 House seats. Obama won Ohio, but Democrats carried only 4 of 16 seats in Ohio’s House delegation. Obviously the voice of the people has been suppressed, as the Republicans will continue to control the House. You don't smell a rat here?

But the problem isn't State legislators. It is also a Conservative Supreme Court:

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), however, cannot simply thank Republican state lawmakers for enabling him to keep his job. He can also thank the conservatives on the Supreme Court. Partisan gerrymandering exists for one purpose: to cut off the ability of people who disagree with a state’s ruling party to influence future elections. It is a a clear violation of the First Amendment, which absolutely prohibits viewpoint discrimination. Yet the Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility to end this discrimination in its 5-4 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer, where the conservative justices tossed out a lawsuit alleging that Pennsylvania’s congressional districts were unconstitutionally drawn to maximize Republican representation in Congress.

Americans voted for a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate, and, barring significant shifts in the vote tally, a Democratic House. Instead, they will get a House majority similar to the one that held the entire nation hostage during last year’s debt ceiling hostage crisis. If the American people wanted this to happen, they would have said so at the polls on Tuesday. Instead, Republican state lawmakers took away their right to democratically legitimate leadership — with a big assist from the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

No matter how you slice it or however you want to make excuses, the fact is the will of the American voters has been undermined. Saying "Democrats do it too" isn't a response that suggests a valid concern over this fact.

Droopy wrote:
This is among the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posts you've ever made here.

Upset that the Republicans are now fighting fire with fire and using classic, longstanding Democratic redistricting tactics to ensure continued incumbency? Gerrymandering had already become a classic Democrat strategy at least twenty years ago, and there was a great deal of hubbub about it then.

You're just making up things as you go along. Gerrymandering is as old as the Republic. The only difference with modern Gerrymandering is that computer models have made it much more efficient than it used to be. It's down to a literal science. Because of that, the gerrymandering is more powerful than ever. The changes in party advantages aren't driven by which party is more mendacious, but simply who controlled the most state governments in years ending in zero.

Recent Democratic major gerrymandering advantages goes back to the 60's, 70's, and 80's. The 90's and 2000's saw a sort of "tie" and 2010 represents a huge advantage to the Republcians.

Calling motor voter laws an attempt to steal an election was a nice touch.

Sheesh Kev, think you would be happy your man won. But your left wing religion just never rests anymore. How come?

I was hoping for a super majority in Congress so we wouldn't have to deal with the same obstructionist BS during the first four years. It just frustrates me that the votes were there, but Republicans still control the House because of the redistricting tactics. You do realize the President needs Congress to pass his proposed legislation, right?

I'm hoping that we're moving towards a "public option" with the ACA and eventually when Hillary becomes President, that can evolve into universal healthcare.

Kev

You really think Hillary will run? My bet is on Andrew Cumo who I quite like.

I think the chances of Hillary running are somewhere between 99 and 99.9%

The chances of her winning are about the same. Welcome to the progressive age. Just had our first Black President, but get ready for the first woman.

Kevin Graham wrote:I think the chances of Hillary running are somewhere between 99 and 99.9%

The chances of her winning are about the same. Welcome to the progressive age. Just had our first Black President, but get ready for the first woman.

1) Neither Obama nor Clinton are progressives.

2) Any Democrat's chances of election in 2016 is going to largely depend on conditions that we don't have enough information to forecast reliably yet. Whether a candidate wins a presidential election has shockingly little to do with who they are or what they advocate.