Gerrymandering and term limits

#103
#103
GAVol said:
In some ways maybe, but it's hard for me to buy that the process worked for a couple hundred years and is now somehow the root of the problem.
Click to expand...

The process is not the same and currently has a lot more influencers. To somehow think we're dealing with the same process is naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#106
#106
CSpindizzy said:
So you're telling me the process that occurred in 1790 and 1800 is the same as it is now? Has not changed either through design or manipulation?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not the exact same. It obviously moves at a much different pace and the money and bureaucracy has increased exponentially. But I still think politics has always been a sign of the times yet worked within a framework.
 
#107
#107
OrangeWayOfLife said:
The way these districts are drawn need to be changed. Yes, that's political but we need to change the process of which it is done.
Click to expand...

As CSpindizzy pointed out, you can improve the transparency of the process. However, you are never going to change those on the left wanting to have districts which are advantageous to them and vise versa with those on the right.

You would think as a conservative you would understand there are certain things which you cannot change; for example, Marxists who want to deny human nature. You are wanting to change a political process which is fundamentally political to some sort of apolitical, objective process. Just foolishness.

Furthermore, you would think as a conservative, you would advocate for gerrymandering. Urban areas tend to be more Democratic. Elections with big turnouts tend to be worse for Republicans. The electoral college, a form of gerrymandering, is immensely helpful to Republicans in POTUS elections. Redistricting towards population could be politically devastating for the GOP.
 
#108
#108
PKT_VOL said:
As CSpindizzy pointed out, you can improve the transparency of the process. However, you are never going to change those on the left wanting to have districts which are advantageous to them and vise versa with those on the right.

You would think as a conservative you would understand there are certain things which you cannot change; for example, Marxists who want to deny human nature. You are wanting to change a political process which is fundamentally political to some sort of apolitical, objective process. Just foolishness.

Furthermore, you would think as a conservative, you would advocate for gerrymandering. Urban areas tend to be more Democratic. Elections with big turnouts tend to be worse for Republicans. The electoral college, a form of gerrymandering, is immensely helpful to Republicans in POTUS elections. Redistricting towards population could be politically devastating for the GOP.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rats ass about what's good for what party, I want to see something indicative of the people of America, more centralized viewpoints, more compromise, less right extreme vs left extreme, middle ground. We are an extremely divided country right now.
 
#109
#109
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I don't give a rats ass about what's good for what party, I want to see something indicative of the people of America, more centralized viewpoints, more compromise, less right extreme vs left extreme, middle ground. We are an extremely divided country right now.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if redistricting and the elimination of the electoral college led to more Democrats (consequently, less Republicans) being elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#110
#110
PKT_VOL said:
Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if redistricting and the elimination of the electoral college led to more Democrats (consequently, less Republicans) being elected.
Click to expand...

If they were centralized, compromising democrats, so be it. I have never pledged loyalty to only the GOP.
 
#112
#112
OrangeWayOfLife said:
If they were centralized, compromising democrats, so be it. I have never pledged loyalty to only the GOP.
Click to expand...

Not many of those still around. Thus, they would probably be fairly left of center.

Those that compromise in the GOP are "RINO's", "sellouts", "traitors", and "scum" as the party goes more conservative.
 
#113
#113
pkt_vol said:
not many of those still around. Thus, they would probably be fairly left of center.

Those that compromise in the gop are "rino's", "sellouts", "traitors", and "scum" as the party goes more conservative.
Click to expand...

ಠ_ಠ
 
#114
#114
PKT_VOL said:
Not many of those still around. Thus, they would probably be fairly left of center.

Those that compromise in the GOP are "RINO's", "sellouts", "traitors", and "scum" as the party goes more conservative.
Click to expand...

Having more balanced districts would force them to be "those". Many that are in office would not be re elected if this were the case
 
#117
#117
Gotta admit, watching Republicans b!tch and whine about gerrymandering may be the only thing richer than a finely marbled A5 wagyu steak.

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top