Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

Wisconsin No Longer Democracy

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, easybronc said:

Boo hoo ... so sad that the democrats can't control the whole state .... that went for Trump

Wisconsin Presidential Election Results 2016.svg

Trump barely won the popular vote in the state.   If the state house had barely won the popular vote they should have a slim majority not a 2/3 majority.  In this case they lost the popular vote and still got a 2/3 majority! 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, easybronc said:

Boo hoo ... so sad that the democrats can't control the whole state .... that went for Trump

Wisconsin Presidential Election Results 2016.svg

But now elected Dems to the statewide offices. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Akkula said:

There are no benefits to democracy, it is just a partisan power grab.  To gerrymander all you have to do is pack as many Democratic votes into as few of districts as possible and spread Republican votes so they can just get above 50% in that district and they win.  The Democratic votes are all wasted once that district gets to 50%.    

You’re acting like it’s only republicans who gerrymander.  Gerrymandering is a partisan issue.  It just happens to be the GOP was the party in control of most State Legislatures the last time districts were redrawn so they get most of the flack for it.  Have you seen Maryland’s gerrymandering?  Come on Akkula, you’re smarter than that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/?noredirect=on

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, retrofade said:

Except that the lame duck legislature just stripped the governor office of a significant portion of its power. 

Not an uncommon tactic too.  Doesn’t necessarily make it right just this isn’t the first time it’s happened and won’t be the last.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/wisconsin-coup-wasnt/

Quote

When Republican Bruce Rauner won an upset victory over Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, legislative Democrats moved in the lame-duck session to truncate the length of the term to which the governor could appoint a comptroller from four years to two. Democrats, Quinn included, claimed that this actually made the system moredemocratic, since it put the vacancy to a vote of the public sooner. “I think democracy is always better when the people call the shots, when the people are in charge,” Quinn said. “Not only is the action planned for tomorrow unconstitutional,” House Republican leader Jim Durkin countered, “it’s nothing short of a power grab by the Democratic majority in a lame-duck session.”

Had former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry been elected to the presidency in 2004, then-Gov. Mitt Romney would have been legally obliged to appoint his replacement to the U.S. Senate, and that replacement would presumably have been a Republican. The Democrats in the state legislature couldn’t have that, so they overrode Romney’s veto to strip his office of senatorial appointment power. But following the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2009, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick was hamstrung by that very same law. So, Massachusetts Democrats simply repealed it.

Brazen power grabs like those above are fortunately rare, but active lame-duck sessions—particularly those that precede a transfer of legislative control from one party to the next—are not. Suffice it to say that Democrats are not the deferential stewards of transition periods their sympathizers in the press make them out to be.

 

 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

You’re acting like it’s only republicans who gerrymander.  Gerrymandering is a partisan issue.  It just happens to be the GOP was the party in control of most State Legislatures the last time districts were redrawn so they get most of the flack for it.  Have you seen Maryland’s gerrymandering?  Come on Akkula, you’re smarter than that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/?noredirect=on

No, he isn't.  But yes, gerrymandering is only noticeably more republican today because republicans happened to have a historically large wave year concurrent with a census year. It really reduces the credibility of criticism of gerrymandering when it isn't brought up as a bipartisan issue. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mugtang said:

You’re acting like it’s only republicans who gerrymander.  Gerrymandering is a partisan issue.  It just happens to be the GOP was the party in control of most State Legislatures the last time districts were redrawn so they get most of the flack for it.  Have you seen Maryland’s gerrymandering?  Come on Akkula, you’re smarter than that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/?noredirect=on

No he's really not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No, he isn't.  But yes, gerrymandering is only noticeably more republican today because republicans happened to have a historically large wave year concurrent with a census year. It really reduces the credibility of criticism of gerrymandering when it isn't brought up as a bipartisan issue. 

Also, most of the most egregious gerrymanders occurred following that wave election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Also, most of the most egregious gerrymanders occurred following that wave election.

Let me introduce you to CO district 6. Gerrymandered by Democrats to the equivalent of districts gerrymandered by Republicans in NC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HR_Poke said:

Let me introduce you to CO district 6. Gerrymandered by Democrats to the equivalent of districts gerrymandered by Republicans in NC.

Are all of the Colorado districts gerrymandered to the point that they've been deemed unconstitutional? Because that's what happened in both NC and PA.

Colorado also doesn't appear to be particularly gerrymandered, at least not on the federal level. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/colorado/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

No, he isn't.  But yes, gerrymandering is only noticeably more republican today because republicans happened to have a historically large wave year concurrent with a census year. It really reduces the credibility of criticism of gerrymandering when it isn't brought up as a bipartisan issue. 

 

46 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

No he's really not. 

I’m an idiot 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mugtang said:

 

I must’ve misread the post.  My bad @Akkula

You're sorry for thinking he's smarter than that?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

 

I must’ve misread the post.  My bad @Akkula

I think they're commenting on your last line "you're smarter than that". Because, well, he's not. He's retarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

Let me introduce you to CO district 6. Gerrymandered by Democrats to the equivalent of districts gerrymandered by Republicans in NC.

A good place to start in determining if a particular state is heavily Gerrymandered is to compare the over distribution of GOP/Dem representation, at both the state and federal levels, with the overall popular vote of the state. Although I suppose there could be some anomalies, I can't believe that anyone could look at the distribution displayed below without coming to the obvious conclusion: heavily Gerrymandered.

Yes, maybe CO district 6 is Gerrymandered but how does the overall representation of the state coincide with the overall popular vote?  

image.png.ecbc6771d295fdf0684af0ae6c209973.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

You're sorry for thinking he's smarter than that?

 

3 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

I think they're commenting on your last line "you're smarter than that". Because, well, he's not. He's retarded. 

Wow I’m dumb 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...