Republicans Trying to Start a Civil War in Texas

#326
#326
McDad said:
I asked earlier today how to create districts better. Nobody offered a suggestion.

A third party "non partisan" committee is one of the ways I found in my search today. It is fraught with potential corruption.

There are a couple of other ways I found. Each with it's own pros and cons.

My suggestion is to 10x the size of congress. More districts means smaller, and more homogeneous groupings of people.
Click to expand...
Create districts strictly with a procedure. Divide the state based on the population within them. Some divisor that multiplies neatly with the number of congressional districts. Looking at a map start in the northwest corner and add these cells based on proximity to the start location. Ignore other bureaucratic or geographic divisions. When one district is filled up create the next one touching the previous. Create rules to help fill in gaps: like no cells can become landlocked. And cells have to be as circular/square as possible, maintaining some "aspect ratio". No appendages. Make some distance rule, like no district may have a radius larger than the average diameter of other districts.

Or make it like some of the rules you give kids. One cuts the other gets to pick which one they want. Meaning one party gets to create the rules, but the other party gets to choose where to start them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, chuckiepoo and McDad
#328
#328
volinbham said:
spitballin' an idea for the gerrymandering

In the preceding Congressional election the % of R v D votes roughly determines the current election split in House seats. So if in 2024 IL had 35% R votes for total house seats and 65% for D then in 2026 the House seats would be split accordingly with tie going to majority. If IL had 10 seats then they would be split 3 R/7 D. Keep the districts the same and run individual races. If the results came out with Ds actually winning 8 seats then the closest district would be awarded to the R to keep the overall state split at the 3/7. If the results came out with Rs actually wining 4 seats then the closest district would be awarded to the D candidate.

Yes this would mean a district (or more) would end up with a representative that did not win the vote but it would nullify the effect where a state ends up with a big difference in party vote vs # of seats (eg some states have no R reps or no D reps).
Click to expand...
bump for flaming
 
#329
#329
volinbham said:
bump for flaming
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting approach but I’d guess it gets no traction with anybody. Politicians will hate it because they can have a race they won taken from them (yes they can have a race given to them they lost too). The voters will hate it because the politicians will tell them too (yes I believe the average voter is that malleable. On both sides of the aisle) I’d have to think a bit but unless politicians can think up a way to game it they’d absolutely make sure it’s DOA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#330
#330
volinbham said:
let's say a delegation was away on official business - a minority faction calls a meeting for a vote that normally wouldn't pass but does because of the artificially small size of the chamber.
Click to expand...
I think that could be covered adequately with some absentee voting parameters (which was part of my original post today).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#331
#331
LouderVol said:
Create districts strictly with a procedure. Divide the state based on the population within them. Some divisor that multiplies neatly with the number of congressional districts. Looking at a map start in the northwest corner and add these cells based on proximity to the start location. Ignore other bureaucratic or geographic divisions. When one district is filled up create the next one touching the previous. Create rules to help fill in gaps: like no cells can become landlocked. And cells have to be as circular/square as possible, maintaining some "aspect ratio". No appendages. Make some distance rule, like no district may have a radius larger than the average diameter of other districts.

Or make it like some of the rules you give kids. One cuts the other gets to pick which one they want. Meaning one party gets to create the rules, but the other party gets to choose where to start them.
Click to expand...
I think it is worthy of a test. But of course we have to continue to admit the politicians do not want this "issue" improved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, Wireless1, tbh and 2 others
#332
#332
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s an interesting approach but I’d guess it gets no traction with anybody. Politicians will hate it because they can have a race they won taken from them (yes they can have a race given to them they lost too). The voters will hate it because the politicians will tell them too (yes I believe the average voter is that malleable. On both sides of the aisle) I’d have to think a bit but unless politicians can think up a way to game it they’d absolutely make sure it’s DOA.
Click to expand...

it's not realistic but in thinking about the idea of representation it gets a little closer at the state level - however, if representation is supposed to be pushed down to the lowest level it fails and ideally districting should be done as close to geographically contiguous and equal population proportion as possible.

it does bring into question what do we mean by representation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and chuckiepoo
#333
#333
McDad said:
I apologize in advance. I am missing the hypocrisy.

Can you clue me in?
Click to expand...

The democrats have used illegal aliens and sanctuary cities to harbor non-citizens for the purpose of having gaining votes and having them counted in the census. They do so in large part to gain additional congressional seats. You didn't actually believe that the left actually gives a sh*t about the welfare of and wanted those people in their cities, did you?

These are the same people who are now clutching their pearls and running away from governance because the other side is (legally) using the census as a way to add congressional seats.

I find it hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62, Vol423, chuckiepoo and 8 others
#334
#334
Septic said:
The democrats have used illegal aliens and sanctuary cities to harbor non-citizens for the purpose of having gaining votes and having them counted in the census. They do so in large part to gain additional congressional seats. You didn't actually believe that the left actually gives a sh*t about the welfare of and wanted those people in their cities, did you?

These are the same people who are now clutching their pearls and running away from governance because the other side is (legally) using the census as a way to add congressional seats.

I find it hypocritical.
Click to expand...
I understand that. Thanks for walking me thought it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and Septic
#335
#335
McDad said:
I think it is worthy of a test. But of course we have to continue to admit the politicians do not want this "issue" improved.
Click to expand...
Agreed. See my first post in this thread. Or one of them.

They want perpetual issues. Far better for job security than having to actually rely on results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and McDad
#336
#336
Last edited:
#337
#337
LouderVol said:
Create districts strictly with a procedure. Divide the state based on the population within them. Some divisor that multiplies neatly with the number of congressional districts. Looking at a map start in the northwest corner and add these cells based on proximity to the start location. Ignore other bureaucratic or geographic divisions. When one district is filled up create the next one touching the previous. Create rules to help fill in gaps: like no cells can become landlocked. And cells have to be as circular/square as possible, maintaining some "aspect ratio". No appendages. Make some distance rule, like no district may have a radius larger than the average diameter of other districts.

Or make it like some of the rules you give kids. One cuts the other gets to pick which one they want. Meaning one party gets to create the rules, but the other party gets to choose where to start them.
Click to expand...
Repeal the 17th Amendmnt. Then eliminate the district model altogether and make representatives of a state campaign to represent the entire state and not just a small population. Winners are the ones who receive the most votes. There are no runoffs in case of a tie. If two or more receive the same number of votes, they are elected to a term as long as there are slots available. If it’s a tie for the last available seat, then the state’s governor and both US Senators will break it with a simple majority vote.
 
#338
#338
MG1968 said:
Repeal the 17th Amendmnt. Then eliminate the district model altogether and make representatives of a state campaign to represent the entire state and not just a small population. Winners are the ones who receive the most votes. There are no runoffs in case of a tie. If two or more receive the same number of votes, they are elected to a term as long as there are slots available. If it’s a tie for the last available seat, then the state’s governor and both US Senators will break it with a simple majority vote.
Click to expand...

Worst idea presented yet.
 
#339
#339
hog88 said:
Worst idea presented yet.
Click to expand...
Yes. Demographically, districts can be entirely different as to concern and need. Even some directly adjacent to one another. For instance, we see a significant difference in the quality, or lack there of, concerning public schools. I would lean more to an expansion by county, or a redistricting of similar counties being put together state by state. Congressional representatives would have a much more focused approach to their constituency
 
#343
#343
MG1968 said:
Can’t be any worse than gerrymandering to disenfranchise entire demographic blocks.

My idea is unconstitutional anyway.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you on repealing the 17th amendment, it was arguably the worst addition to the constitution in our history. Your idea (yes its unconstitutional) doubles down on that by making House reps statewide votes.

I don't know how you can say gerrymandering disenfranchises demographic blocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#344
#344
MontyPython said:
Per Lee Corso, not so fast my friend...

This is going to bring some head-shaking and scratching from some here or cat calls, but I'll float this balloon anyway...

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Right? Right. Yet from the birth of our Constitution in 1787 until 1954 - 167 years - racial segregation was "constitutional".

How could something that was legal in our country for 167 years become illegal? Hmmm...

Did the Constitution change? No, it didn't... only through Amendments can it evolve. And what is the basis of these Amendments? Popular vote in our federal legislature i.e. a reflection of popular opinion.

The basis for amendments to the U.S. Constitution - via the legislature - is outlined in Article V, which provides a structured process for proposing and ratifying changes to ensure they reflect a broad consensus while maintaining the document’s stability. The amendment process is designed to balance adaptability with the need to protect the Constitution’s core principles from fleeting or narrow interests.

An Amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate which requires significant bipartisan support reflecting a national consensus.

Similarly, did public opinion on the *legal interpretation* of racial segregation as allowed by the original Constitution (along with its popularity-driven Amendments) change by 1954? Yes.

Public opinion evolved over time to recognize that segregation - just like slavery - was simply considered *wrong* (by most). Our governing bodies then changed their interpretation of the Constitution to effectively reflect changing public opinion.

What was Constitutionally legal for 167 years became illegal.

So, yes, in a weird, warped way, the Supreme Court does actually make decisions based upon evolving public opinion... whether they like to admit it or not.
Click to expand...
You should put lawyer in your name.
It would be more believable than the clowns on here pretending to be one.
 
#345
#345
www.foxnews.com

Dems wanted to draw every Republican out of Maryland but now lambast Texas redistricting

Maryland's infamous 'pterodactyl' shaped congressional district from 2010 redistricting successfully eliminated Republican representatives as Democrats defended extreme gerrymandering.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com


Appearing to painstakingly connect some of the state’s wealthier suburban communities while steering clear of inner-city Baltimore and the military installation at Fort George Meade, the district had the rare distinction of being one that a person would be unable to drive across.




1754519210583.png

The former map of Maryland's 3rd congressional district (Wikimedia Commons via University of Maryland-Baltimore County)
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#347
#347
hog88 said:
I 100% agree with you on repealing the 17th amendment, it was arguably the worst addition to the constitution in our history. Your idea (yes its unconstitutional) doubles down on that by making House reps statewide votes.

I don't know how you can say gerrymandering disenfranchises demographic blocks.
Click to expand...
That’s the whole point of gerrymandering as it’s currently practiced by both parties. You can’t have a district redrawn in the shape of a starfish in order to protect a political party and not disenfranchise somebody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, UT_Dutchman, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#349
#349
appvol said:
It’s about time Republicans did what Democrats have done for years.
Click to expand...

The irony of you pretending that Texas isn't already as gerrymandered as Illinois or Maryland is rich, but when exactly did one of these democratic gerrymandered states attempt a mid-decade redistricting in order to retain control of Congress?
 
#350
#350
Septic said:
The democrats have used illegal aliens and sanctuary cities to harbor non-citizens for the purpose of having gaining votes and having them counted in the census. They do so in large part to gain additional congressional seats. You didn't actually believe that the left actually gives a sh*t about the welfare of and wanted those people in their cities, did you?

These are the same people who are now clutching their pearls and running away from governance because the other side is (legally) using the census as a way to add congressional seats.

I find it hypocritical.
Click to expand...
California and Texas have the largest undocumented populations of any state with 2.6 and 2.1 million respectively.

Those two states account for 42% of the entire undocumented population of the United States.

Both would only lose 1 representative each, if they weren't taken into consideration in the last census.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top