In America, we are electing our Congressmen

[taks]

Even when one party doesn't have exclusive control of the districting process, there is often a bi-partisan Gerrymander to protect the status-quo incumbents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, sort of a tit for tat. "ok, i want to keep this district seat, and you can have that one." here lies another corruptive element of our system, for which i do not have a solution (i don't know if anyone does).

 

taks

[Sand]

We just need to keep adding in Democrats and Independents till the Republicans are no more but a bad memory. DOWN WITH THE REPUBLICANS!

 

Unless you're an idealogue that totally buys into their platform, I'm guessing that taks' idea of splitting the power is not a bad idea at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would essentially split the country which is a bad idea. What we need to do is to keep religion out of our government. Period. Only through a secular democratic government can all people who are govern be treated equally and fairly. Religion and spirituality has its place, the church and the private lives of individuals if they so choose to follow a religion.

[Colrom]

I would be happier if more voting districts were convex polygons. My voting district looks like a C. It was designed to elect a Republican while sucking up as many Democratic votes as possible consistent with that. A regular convex polygon centered on my house would be 95% Republican.

[Enoch]

Even when one party doesn't have exclusive control of the districting process, there is often a bi-partisan Gerrymander to protect the status-quo incumbents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, sort of a tit for tat. "ok, i want to keep this district seat, and you can have that one." here lies another corruptive element of our system, for which i do not have a solution (i don't know if anyone does).

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Activist Judges" could solve this problem, if they were so inclined. The Supreme Court has required for decades that Congressional district be as close to equal in population as possible, and that racially discriminatory districting is forbidden. It's not a huge leap to say that drawing districts in bizarre shapes to turn a statewide 55-45 majority into a 70-30 majority of that state's Representatives is a partial diminishment of the political minority's voting rights (similar to that of districts that aren't of equal population).

 

But the SCOTUS has been presented with this question several times and always avioded it as a matter for the legislatures alone.

 

Also, some states like Iowa do all their districting via a computer formula that doesn't consider the political consequences of the outcome. California had a ballot initiative to do something similar to this a couple of years ago, but it failed.

[taks]

That would essentially split the country which is a bad idea.  What we need to do is to keep religion out of our government.  Period.  Only through a secular democratic government can all people who are govern be treated equally and fairly.  Religion and spirituality has its place, the church and the private lives of individuals if they so choose to follow a religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

splitting power does not split the country any more than it currently is. splitting power simply prevents one ideology from dominating the political process and subjugating the power of the people. one when party rules both the legislative and executive branches, nobody's will gets served other than that of the politicians themselves.

 

taks

[~Di]

I am glad, very glad, that the democrats have taken over congress. Now both parties will have to work together and *gasp!* actually compromise to get anything done. That is a good thing. I will probably vote for the republican candidate in 2008 to keep that compromise going, because I for one never like to see either party 100% in control.

[taks]

i really don't either, and i was worried about government spending when the GOP took control in the first place. seems i was right. i don't, however, think they'll really "work together" except with iraq. otherwise, i expect mostly that nothing will get done.

 

taks

[~Di]

Nothing has gotten done the past six years. The worst "do nothing congress" in history. The only thing they agreed upon was giving themselves a raise and cutting their workweek down to three lousy days.

 

Now you tell me how it could possibly get worse?

[Enoch]

By the way, it's now official: George Allen has conceded in Virginia. That makes the Senate 51-49 in favor of the Dems.

[taks]

Nothing has gotten done the past six years.  The worst "do nothing congress" in history.  The only thing they agreed upon was giving themselves a raise and cutting their workweek down to three lousy days.

 

Now you tell me how it could possibly get worse?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh, they did plenty. they spent money like it was water. that's what i mean, nothing w.r.t. spending will get done. i don't think it can get worse, btw.

 

taks

[Sand]

I will be voting Democrat all they way. I don't and will never agree with Republican backwards 19th century ideology. I will be voting Democrat down the board until the Republican party is no more or third party that I can agree with more than Democrats take a sizable chunk out of both parties and have an actual chance to win.

[Pop]

Now it's official

 

Dem control of the Senate is worth it if only because now an archconservative won't be elected to the Supreme Court, and thus our civil liberties will not be ****ed with in some backwards attempt at "constructionist" jurisprudence.

[Laozi]

So, do you guys think we finally have a Congress where Corporate interest won't supersede public interest? Somehow I'm not that optimistic, I'm also curious to see how much time is spent investigating the presidential administration's dealings. Hopefully this won't bog down the Congress, but at the same time I am interested in finding out about alot of Cheney's "behind closed doors" dealings.

[Pop]

So, do you guys think we finally have a Congress where Corporate interest won't supersede public interest? Somehow I'm not that optimistic, I'm also curious to see how much time is spent investigating the presidential administration's dealings. Hopefully this won't bog down the Congress, but at the same time I am interested in finding out about alot of Cheney's "behind closed doors" dealings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no way in a cold hell that Congress is going to investigate the executive branch thoroughly. They might go after Cheney's energy deals, but even that's risky. Much as it would energize their base, investigative actions into things that happened over 4 years ago would alienate a lot of voters, and politicians are in the businesses of politics first and governance second, and going after the White House wouldn't do anything for either.

[Dark Moth]

Now it's official

 

Dem control of the Senate is worth it if only because now an archconservative won't be elected to the Supreme Court, and thus our civil liberties will not be ****ed with in some backwards attempt at "constructionist" jurisprudence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you implying that it's impossible for an archliberal to **** up our civil liberties?

[kumquatq3]

Now it's official

 

Dem control of the Senate is worth it if only because now an archconservative won't be elected to the Supreme Court, and thus our civil liberties will not be ****ed with in some backwards attempt at "constructionist" jurisprudence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you implying that it's impossible for an archliberal to **** up our civil liberties?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, they just invent new ones.

[Pop]

Now it's official

 

Dem control of the Senate is worth it if only because now an archconservative won't be elected to the Supreme Court, and thus our civil liberties will not be ****ed with in some backwards attempt at "constructionist" jurisprudence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you implying that it's impossible for an archliberal to **** up our civil liberties?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Senate confirms or rejects, they don't nominate, and Bush wouldn't nominate an archliberal. So it really doesn't matter in this case.

[Dark Moth]

Way to dodge the question.

[Pop]

Way to dodge the question. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then your answer is no. The implication was that an archconservative would **** up civil liberties.

[Lucius]

LOL jesus boy is going at it again.

 

Once more Mothie, I'm not gonna reply to a biblefreak, I'm afraid I might be mistaken for a fundie when the rapture comes around. :crazy:

[Dark Moth]

Way to dodge the question. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then your answer is no. The implication was that an archconservative would **** up civil liberties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks. Just making sure! Just don't forget that a Dem controlled senate could always have the possibility of electing an archliberal.

[Pop]

Way to dodge the question. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then your answer is no. The implication was that an archconservative would **** up civil liberties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks. Just making sure! Just don't forget that a Dem controlled senate could always have the possibility of electing an archliberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have the possibility to elect one if one is put before them, but that's not going to happen. What we're likely going to see more of are moderate conservative judges in the mold of Roberts, less staunch conservatives in the Alito / Thomas / Scalia mold. But there's no way Bush is ever going to farther left than O'Connor.

[alanschu]

The moderation is important.

 

Voting nothing but Liberal all the time lets the Liberals rubber stamp their policies. Same goes for Conservatives.

[taks]

I don't and will never agree with Republican backwards 19th century ideology.

you mean like, property rights, capitalism, etc... right?

 

I will be voting Democrat down the board until the Republican party is no more or third party that I can agree with more than Democrats take a sizable chunk out of both parties and have an actual chance to win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i.e. baaaa.

 

taks

[Dark Moth]

Sand logic.

 

The moderation is important.

 

Voting nothing but Liberal all the time lets the Liberals rubber stamp their policies.  Same goes for Conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have to agree with you there. I hope though that at least with the Dems taking up half the Senate we'll see more moderates put in charge.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Dark Moth