|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 15:42:47 GMT
Race has nothing to do with the maps. It's about drawing them up to represent the majority of the state. Now.....how odd would it be if one has a heavy Republican majority state to send Democrats there to D.C. to represent them? It's not just odd; it's ludicrous. And Democrats have used the race issue and the fact that for so many decades Texas and a few other states ha to get "approval" of their maps from the feds as an excuse to use it to their advantage. Do you think they would care one bit IF 99% of blacks voted for Republicans? Hell no.....they would be drawing them out. In fact, they already do that. What the liberal judge did with his interim map...when he temporarily redrew ours.....as to simply boot out several Republican Hispanic representatives in lieu of Democrats. We all know what they do.
We have an old saying in Texas...."Don't pee on me and try to tell me it's raining."
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2013 15:59:55 GMT
I call BS, shiva. It's utterly illogical to say that because democrats got 39% of the vote, they should have 39% of the seats. Think about what you are saying. Article I of the US Constitution clearly establishes that the House Seats are supposed to be representative of the popular vote of the People. I can understand a slight disparity because of how House Seats are allocated to the States but 39%, which would represent 14 House Seats, is significantly different than 12 House Seats that only represent 33.3% of the vote. Now, if we address this based upon a National level then the differences in how House Seats are divided between the States should average out but they don't because of political gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Anyone that doesn't realize this is a fool. I'm not a fan of Democrats but I am a supporter of the US Constitution and when I look at the national vote for House Seats where the Democrats had a substantial majority but ended up with a distinct minority of House Seats I know that the intent of the US Constitution is being violated. And I care about the US Constitution even if it means that the "opposing" political party has control. Of course, from my political perspective both the Democrats and Republicans represent the "opposing" political party. I lose either way. |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 6, 2013 18:25:47 GMT
I know I answered. I musta forgot to hit enter.
Shiva. You have invented a problem that does not exist. The only way to guarantee results with the "correct" ratio of democrats and republicans is to draw lines by party affiliation. And since Texas voters do not choose a party, you would have to go by voting results... certainly even you can see the unconstitutionality of that. We absolutely have a good representation of racial and ethnic minorities in our government here, something most states cannot say. Your claim that we are discriminating against democrats is simply preposterous.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 6, 2013 18:40:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2013 12:41:40 GMT
I know I answered. I musta forgot to hit enter. Shiva. You have invented a problem that does not exist. The only way to guarantee results with the "correct" ratio of democrats and republicans is to draw lines by party affiliation. And since Texas voters do not choose a party, you would have to go by voting results... certainly even you can see the unconstitutionality of that. We absolutely have a good representation of racial and ethnic minorities in our government here, something most states cannot say. Your claim that we are discriminating against democrats is simply preposterous. Apparently the federal courts disagree because a year ago, when presented with evidence, three federal judges found that discrimination still existed in Texas. I have a suggestion. How about removing all party designations from the ballot and eliminating all Congression districts completely. Let the voters select one "candidate" from the total field of candidates and vote for them. In Texas the top 36 candidates, based upon the popular vote, would be elected to be Representatives in the US Congress. There isn't any requirement in the US Constitution for Congressional districts so let's eliminate them along with prejudical identification of the candidates by party designation. Let the voters vote for the person of their choice and not the political party. Problem solved in a Constitutional manner. |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 7, 2013 15:06:27 GMT
You cannot be serious. I think you haven't thought it through. Let's say you have 50 candidates. The top 20 might get a substantial number of votes. The next 16 could get elected simply by having a large family. Srsly.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 7, 2013 15:15:42 GMT
Not only that. The intent of the authors of the Constitution was for districts to be represented. In your scenario, it's quite possible that all the reps would be from a only a few areas. The intent of the Constitution would be completely ignored. Candidates would be able to campaign in a select few areas. Despite the attractiveness of watching Sheila Jackson Lee go down in flames in a statewide contest, I still have to say that it would be unconstitutional to deny those folks the representative of their choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2013 16:34:31 GMT
You cannot be serious. I think you haven't thought it through. Let's say you have 50 candidates. The top 20 might get a substantial number of votes. The next 16 could get elected simply by having a large family. Srsly. Actually I believe that to be a huge positive step when compared to what we currently have. It would certainly bring new ideas and political perspectives to the House instead of the failed politics and policies of Democrats and Republicans that have controlled Congress since well before I was born. What I find somewhat amazing is that some are opposed to a diversification of the membership in the House so that it actually represents the American People as opposed to representing just the Democrats and Republicans. We would unquestionably have representation from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitutional Party (the five major US political parties), and maybe the Communist Party or other minority parties as well. It would really "open up" the political representation of the People in our Congress which we don't have today. There are five major political parties in the US that I've noted and about 28 minor political parties but only two of the major parties are really represented in the House of Representatives today. That is not representative of the People of the United States. Are Americans really afraid of minority political opinions? I'm certainly not and highly advocate the diversification that my proposal offers. I also highly advocate that any presidential candidate that is on the ballot in enough states to theoretically be elected (based upon potential Electoral College votes) be included in the nationally televised Presidential Debates. This scares the crap out of both Democrats and Republicans that would have their common "opposite sides of the same coin" agendas being challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2013 16:39:21 GMT
Not only that. The intent of the authors of the Constitution was for districts to be represented. Show me anywhere in the US Constitution where it refers to "Congressional Districts" and I'll believe you. As written, and the authors of the US Constitution were very articulate in defining how our government was to be established, there is no requirement for congressional districts and I dispute that Congressional districts were ever intended by Article I of the US Constitution. What was clearly intended is that the House would represent the People of the State and the Senate would represent the State in our two houses of Congress. In fact, before being amended, the Senators were selected by the State legislature and I don't believe that should ever have been changed. |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 8, 2013 19:10:09 GMT
The intent is clear. The representative is to be closer to the people. When they said representatives shall not exceed one every thirty thousand, it is clear that they did not want votes diluted further. This why they gave the House so much power. They considered it closer to the people by way of representing fewer people and being voted in every 2 years. I know the current thinking is that the Senate is more powerful but that is not the way the founders intended it. The speaker of the house is third in line to the presidency for this reason. They clearly wanted everyone to be represented in DC, not just the highly populated areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2013 20:03:30 GMT
The intent is clear. The representative is to be closer to the people. When they said representatives shall not exceed one every thirty thousand, it is clear that they did not want votes diluted further. This why they gave the House so much power. They considered it closer to the people by way of representing fewer people and being voted in every 2 years. I know the current thinking is that the Senate is more powerful but that is not the way the founders intended it. The speaker of the house is third in line to the presidency for this reason. They clearly wanted everyone to be represented in DC, not just the highly popultated areas. We should also note that the founders didn't believe that two political parties should control everything eliminating minority opinion from government. We would accomplish a lot by just removing the party designation from the ballot and political advertisements as well as eliminating the "incumbant" designation. We have "sheep" voting based upon political party as opposed to using their brain and actually investigating the positions of the candidates. The founders believed in an "informed electorate" and we've certainly lost that. |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 8, 2013 20:26:40 GMT
I agree with you there. We'd have to have the candidates randomly placed on each ballot lest the person at the top automatically win.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2013 23:09:28 GMT
I agree with you there. We'd have to have the candidates randomly placed on each ballot lest the person at the top automatically win. AIN'T THAT THE UNDISPUTED TRUTH BECAUSE MOST VOTERS ARE IDIOTS. <Gotta be long winded to hit the 10 word minimum> |
|
|
|
Post by curmudgeon on Aug 27, 2013 20:12:19 GMT
I read the Republican side but the actual laws in question are not presented. I will simply look at another fact. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/us/a-wrench-in-the-works-on-voting-laws.html?_r=0So the question of whether Texas still discriminates in it's voting laws, which is key to the entire issue, was answered a year ago unanimously by three federal judges based upon the evidence presented to them. How about when Texas can demonstrate that its stopped discriminating in its voting laws then the US government's authority to oversee Texas election laws, granted by statutory law by the US Congress, will end. When a state establishes that it has been discriminatory in denying the right to vote then the burden of proof to show that this discrimination no longer exists is with the State and not the Federal government. So far Texas appears to be a long ways from showing it's stopped its discrimination against minorities. This is why the Feds are likely to prevail. Texas is trying to reinstate laws which have already been struck down as discriminatory. The op is wrong in that section 5 was not struck down, section 4 was. Section 5 allows the feds to bring a case against laws that are discriminatory after they are passed. Texas has repassed laws already declared discriminatory a year ago. It will take some time, but Texas is very likely to lose this case. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 27, 2013 22:35:53 GMT
It's going to be pretty difficult to prove that Texas' maps are discriminatory since the federal court in San Antonio actually drew the map that was to be used....and WAS used....in the 2012 election. A few months later....in Texas' first Special Legislation Session, the legislature ADOPTED THAT FEDERLLY-DRAWN map to use from now on.....and abandoned the one that had been criticized.
|
|
