Gerrymandering and term limits

#51
#51
therealUT said:
This. I think the pay ought to be reduced drastically. Congressmen should be paid enough to decently subsist, that's it. There should also be more Congressmen so that potential extra-income from lobbyists would have to be divided up among more persons, leaving them with less incentive to stay in office for long periods and less incentive to potentially compromise their career/integrity for a few small bribes.
Click to expand...

So you agree with making it a part time job but disagree with term limits? And I'm the one shrouded in inconsistencies?
 
#54
#54
OrangeWayOfLife said:
You hold the golden vote? You're inability to grasp general concepts makes me ok with your lack of participation
Click to expand...

That makes two of us who are okay with my lack of participation. Only one of us, however, is explicitly opposed to the restriction of personal liberty while simultaneously supporting the restriction of personal liberty.
 
#56
#56
therealUT said:
That makes two of us who are okay with my lack of participation. Only one of us, however, is explicitly opposed to the restriction of personal liberty while simultaneously supporting the restriction of personal liberty.
Click to expand...

Only one of us believe being a lifetime politician is a personal liberty
 
#59
#59
therealUT said:
Small Questions:

Do term-limits, by definition, limit the personal liberty I have to vote for the individual I think is the best qualified for the position?

Is this for the greater good?
Click to expand...

Do you not retain the personal liberty to vote for whomever you wish? Whether the person is electable doesn't hinder your casting avote.
 
#60
#60
As to gerrymandering, at the national level this affects only the House because the Senate is based on the state's boundaries. The trend has been that the Republicans are heavily gerrymandering around tea party districts, where the incumbents' only worry is not being extreme enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
lawgator1 said:
As to gerrymandering, at the national level this affects only the House because the Senate is based on the state's boundaries. The trend has been that the Republicans are heavily gerrymandering around tea party districts, where the incumbents' only worry is not being extreme enough.
Click to expand...

So you're going automatically point fingers? This goes on with both parties. It needs to be stopped. This keeps politicians from having to compromise.
 
#62
#62
OrangeWayOfLife said:
So you're going automatically point fingers? This goes on with both parties. It needs to be stopped. This keeps politicians from having to compromise.
Click to expand...


I agree with you.

But the fact is that Republican voting districts are increasingly becoming concentrated by their efforts to "lock in" guaranteed seats in those states controlled by Republican legislatures. The districts are not competitive as between Dem and Republican -- the only question is who is furthest to the right within the Republican primary.

No doubt, many are insincere when portraying themselves that way to the base within those districts. But, then they have to run for reelection ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
McDad said:
Do you not retain the personal liberty to vote for whomever you wish? Whether the person is electable doesn't hinder your casting avote.
Click to expand...

It does hinder my vote. My vote is not simply cashed out by checking a box, it is having a legitimate voice (note, that legitimate is not opposed to small) in the way my society is operated. Casting votes for persons that are barred from winning is not having a legitimate voice.
 
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
I agree with you.

But the fact is that Republican voting districts are increasingly becoming concentrated by their efforts to "lock in" guaranteed seats in those states controlled by Republican legislatures. The districts are not competitive as between Dem and Republican -- the only question is who is furthest to the right within the Republican primary.

No doubt, many are insincere when portraying themselves that way to the base within those districts. But, then they have to run for reelection ...
Click to expand...

Democrats are just as guilty
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
It does hinder my vote. My vote is not simply cashed out by checking a box, it is having a legitimate voice (note, that legitimate is not opposed to small) in the way my society is operated. Casting votes for persons that are barred from winning is not having a legitimate voice.
Click to expand...

But upcoming representatives will have to garner much of what your beloved representitive stood for to obtain your vote, which is exactly why politicians would have to be more centralized and compromisable to win elections.
 
#67
#67
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Democrats are just as guilty
Click to expand...


Not for some time.

But theoretically, yes, whoever controls the state legislatures controls the House of Representatives, too. So I agree with you that gerrymandering ought to be forbidden. Make districts reflect things like county lines, or natural geographic occurrences. End the practice of stringing together gated communities, along hundreds of miles, sometimes just a mile or two across, to hang onto a seat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
Compare the state control of the Legislature by those whose reapportionment process is controlled by the Legislature. You can see who drives the process.

Legislative_Partisan_Composition_2014_Post-Election.jpg redistricting-reapportionment-and-reform-11-638.jpg
 
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
Not for some time.

But theoretically, yes, whoever controls the state legislatures controls the House of Representatives, too. So I agree with you that gerrymandering ought to be forbidden. Make districts reflect things like county lines, or natural geographic occurrences. End the practice of stringing together gated communities, along hundreds of miles, sometimes just a mile or two across, to hang onto a seat.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you on how districts should be established. Your devotion to never agree that democrats are just as much a problem makes you susceptible to approve anything a democrat promotes. Everybody as whole need to realize that these people are not looking out for our best interests, regardless of party affiliation.
 
#70
#70
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I 100% agree with you on how districts should be established. Your devotion to never agree that democrats are just as much a problem makes you susceptible to approve anything a democrat promotes. Everybody as whole need to realize that these people are not looking out for our best interests, regardless of party affiliation.
Click to expand...


I agree with you that both do it, I agree with you that all have the potential to do it.

I just do not agree with you that, currently, it is abused equally. That has nothing to do with the fact that the problem needs to be remedied.

Unfortunately, I think you will find however that it has everything to do with how any sort of reform manages to get shot down, time and time again. And by whom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#71
#71
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Let me whip out my executive pen and sign that into action. If I'm the only one voting for candidates who want to fix congressional issues then it never will be put in to practice. All I can do right now is try to spread the idea to others.
Click to expand...

Totally missed the point.
 
#72
#72
Term limits somewhat thwarts the will of the people in a district or state... Majority vote elects ...Just a thought
 
#74
#74
Velo Vol said:
Correct.

Redistricting is unavoidable, gerrymandering is not. You can have a system that creates much more randomized districts than the ones that are drawn up by political parties.
Click to expand...

Redistricting is gerrymandering. The only time you are going to anything close to "random" districts are apolitical lines established a long time ago such as state and county boundaries (and there will be ****ing and inevitably tinkering with that eventually).

Look, it is a zero sum game. That makes redistricting synonymous with gerrymandering.
 
#75
#75
therealUT said:
It does hinder my vote. My vote is not simply cashed out by checking a box, it is having a legitimate voice (note, that legitimate is not opposed to small) in the way my society is operated. Casting votes for persons that are barred from winning is not having a legitimate voice.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell those that vote for third party candidates who have no chance of winning. They have convinced themselves that their vote (casting a ballot) is a powerful, legitimate voice against the status quo.
Furthermore, the handful of people who voted for Carter v Reagan and Mondale v Reagan also felt their vote was legitimate even though those candidates lost.

You want the liberty to cast a vote. You got it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top