Voting discussion thread
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
You said it incorrectly.
Say it like this:
It's only rigged when Trump LOSES.
He's a loser.
He hates being a loser, but he is.
In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling that struck down the new Texas congressional map as a racial gerrymander, citing its December stay of that ruling.
Meanwhile, in the former communist country of Estonia, citizens can hop on the internet to their secure government portal that combines all of their government services with the ability to vote electronically in a free and fair democratic format...
I wish we could do that here but the technology just isn't there. The hackers are better than any government agency so it's not worth the risk. I'm sure we'll get there at some point (being able to vote from the luxury of your own home) but that time is not now. Estonia? Somehow I don't get the feeling that the urge to hack their elections is anywhere near as attractive as the US election. Unless they are trying to get Latka Gravas elected President then nobody cares about Estonia.
I am 100% infavor of the National Popular Vote Compact. The EC is a ridiculous way to elect a president in modern times. Every vote cast in a presidential election should be equal. My vote is completely ignored by my state; I get 0 representation in DC when the electors cast their ballots. It is a complete waste of time voting for president if you live in a deep red or blue state and vote the opposite way.
The Virginia Supreme Court denied a request by AG Jones to pause a lower court order that blocked the certification of the redistricting referendum. The election will remain uncertified as the legal process plays out.
GOP is trying to overturn another election I see.
I don't see the MAGA posters crying about Texas redistricting, but suddenly Virginia does it, and it's all bad.
I don't see the MAGA posters crying about Texas redistricting, but suddenly Virginia does it, and it's all bad.
So, the VA redistricting was poised to add 10 new Democrats and the CA redistricting to add 5 for a total of 15. The TX redistricting was set to add 5 new Republicans so the Republicans are are down 10 so far. When the total redistricting efforts cross over to a Republican advantage you are allowed to claim whataboutism.
I mean, VA did violate their constitutional rules, TX did not. Neither did CA.
Then you support an unconstitutional law.
And guess what's gonna happen?
Assuming it winds up before SCOTUS, it will be shot down, 6-3, and then the whining about the bias of the Court and 'what victims we are' will be the cry of the Blue MAGA.
Then amend the constitution.
The way you're talking about means California - ALONE - selects the President.
I'll grant that there's somewhere between 7 and 15 states (depending on the candidate) that are the battleground states. But those states have also changed (mostly) through the years, too.
Any state that wants to can start voting more towards the center at any time they desire.
You're correct - NOBODY gets representation.
THE STATE gets representation in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
I actually don't disagree with this.
But then again, I find voting FOR PRESIDENT to be largely a mindless exercise between what half-wit and which dimwit will be my choices.
I'm not MAGA, and I'll say right out:
a) Texas pulling their stunt was stupid
b) I honestly don't mind Virginia retaliating, either.
But what I DO mind is this constant victimhood on the left, who sounds like Donald Trump on this issue.
"But gerrymandering", I mean, we studied it in US government, but it only became a prominent excuse FROM VOTERS (likely due to social media) around 2012 or so. One of my longtime friends turned 40 in 2010 and became a hard left liberal and Facebook rage poster on gerrymandering. Amazingly, gerrymandering - in the left-wing canon - even affects SENATORIAL races, which only goes to show how deep the whining goes. (Seth Moulton actually said that about the Senate back around 2018 or so - and he knows better).
But you don't get to whine non-stop about how you oppose gerrymandering - and THEN gerrymander "because we have to do it to make things right," either. What's funny is you I can pull up article after article from the 1980s about gerrymandering and you'd be amazed at it:
a) Republicans insist they can't catch the Democrats because of it
b) They use all of the same dumb arguments Democrats do NOW (like "the national popular Congressional vote," which is some nonsense)
The Republican Party of Newt Gingrich DID NOT INVENT gerrymandering.
And the SCOTUS of 2013 that went with precedent didn't "make it okay" any more than it already was.
Again - I'm not saying I'm in favor it, it's clearly wrong (although it sometimes has some amusing consequences). But you don't get to spend 15 years whining incessantly about "we can't win the House because gerrymandering" and THEN gerrymander, either.
Didn't the Democrats capture the House in 2018?
How was that possible "because the GOP gerrymanders"?
Actually, it was possible because they ran some non-crazy candidates for House races.
If they hadn't gone over the line during the Kavanaugh hearings, they might well have won the Senate.
Oh, please.
You folks don't get to pretend that listening to the Clueless Casino Oaf show what a math genius he is didn't begin the latest round.
At least the other stuff was during the every ten year redistricting. Trump came right out -because he's a moron - and said out loud what he wanted to do. The Democrats decided to return fire.
You know, like Iran.
I'm still waiting on the liberal demand for Jay Jones to resign after his wishing to murder his opponent.
But hey, who ever said people in politics believed the crap they say?
Damn, I'm old enough to remember when Republicans believed in states rights and not just on race.
He's nothing but an old whiner.
He knows he lost in 2020.
And so does every poster here who pretends otherwise.
I'm not sure it's as cut-and-dried as you say, but I agree that SCOTUS will likely rule that the National Popular Vote Compact violates the Compact Clause. Kavanaugh and/or Barrett (especially) are probably the swing votes.
The constitution also says each state decides how they select their electors. So, even if the SCOTUS strikes down the compact, they can’t stop the states from still participating in it and sending electors to DC based on who wins the popular vote. It just becomes an under the table agreement.
I got the following from google. @selmaborntidefan, what is your response to this argument? I'm really am curious.
Under the Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), consent is only needed for compacts that increase state power at the expense of federal supremacy. The compact does not interfere with federal authority but rather exercises state authority to achieve a national outcome.
I got the following from google. @selmaborntidefan, what is your response to this argument? I'm really am curious.
Under the Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), consent is only needed for compacts that increase state power at the expense of federal supremacy. The compact does not interfere with federal authority but rather exercises state authority to achieve a national outcome.
In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana's new congressional map that added a second majority-black district, holding that it constitutes a racial gerrymander. The Court narrows its previous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
ESPN: Sources: Sorsby hires attorney amid NCAA probe- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
No. 24 Alabama Cruises to 5-0 Win Over Vanderbilt on Friday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 7
-
ESPN: Big Ten distributes record $1.37 billion in revenu...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: No. 4 ranked RB Roberts commits to Longhorns
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Gophers QB Lindsey arrested for fake ID, alcohol
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0