Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Beginning of the End of Gerrymandering?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Yes, and I agreed that they are both guilty of gerrymandering. The point I made in refutation to you was that republicans took it to a whole new and ridiculous level.
    But they didn't. And again this is just one state and a specific instance which Pennsylvania says was about some old maps that were in violation of their constitution. The republicans are just arguing against the ruling. Gerrymandering goes on everywhere on both sides. In most places it is perfectly legal.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      But they do.
      Today they do - and they have also at other historical moments. They do not HAVE to.

      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Or perhaps you have it backwards, perhaps the source of the polarization is the parties themselves.
      There is most definitely a feedback loop that is created - but there is no one thing that I find to be the "source" of polarization. There are many contributing factors.

      Be that as it may - it is unlikely that a different model will emerge. Perhaps, at some point, a multi-party system, but then you will necessarily have parties caucusing together to achieve an effective majority and have sway.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Why? It certainly wasn't the original intent of the founding fathers, and G. Washington himself warned against it. Looks to me like he was spot on.
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        The "original intent' of the founding fathers is open for debate - as is the question...."should their original intent be our sine qua non?" Or perhaps we should be thinking for ourselves...?
        Jim's correct about the original intent - this one's not in a gray area. And here we have a perfect example of you failing to address the actual question of why you think Jim would not like a government that had no political parties. THIS is what people complain about with you - you are not addressing the issues and that happens when you don't seem to have a direct answer. Here Jim called you on what appears to be an off-the-cuff remark. No representative form of government comes without parties. Even totalitarian governments usually have factions (rarely strongly divergent ones, of course). So what model did you have in mind when you told him he wouldn't like a government with no parties?
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Yes, and I agreed that they are both guilty of gerrymandering. The point I made in refutation to you was that republicans took it to a whole new and ridiculous level.
          Um, Jim, you do know that modern gerrymandering is kid stuff in comparison to what took place before the major reforms, right? Compared to the Democrats of not so very old, current Republicans are pikers. But if you are talking about all of partisan history, then forget pot and kettle - pitch and tar are having a fight over who's blacker.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Jim's correct about the original intent - this one's not in a gray area. And here we have a perfect example of you failing to address the actual question of why you think Jim would not like a government that had no political parties. THIS is what people complain about with you - you are not addressing the issues and that happens when you don't seem to have a direct answer. Here Jim called you on what appears to be an off-the-cuff remark. No representative form of government comes without parties. Even totalitarian governments usually have factions (rarely strongly divergent ones, of course). So what model did you have in mind when you told him he wouldn't like a government with no parties?
            As with Sparko - you are right on this one. I need to respond to fewer posts and spend more time on them. He asked why and my answer focused on the sentence that followed. I never went back to the "why."

            The "why," IMO, is that a single-party system provides no vehicle for dissent. We would have that, effectively, if the Republicans continued to gain seats in all legislatures and state houses, and ended up with a veto-proof trifecta at the federal and state levels. Whatever this dominant party wanted would happen, disempowering those who disagree with them. If you do not see that, imagine how you would feel if that scenario occurred for the party that you are most opposed to. Are you a deep-red Republican? Imagine the only party was the Democrats - with a trifectsa in all statehouses and at the federal level, and a hammer-lock on the courts as well. Are you a deep-blue Democrat? Do the reverse. It will give you a visceral feel for what a single-party system (or no party system, which is equivalent) were to be implemented.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              As with Sparko - you are right on this one. I need to respond to fewer posts and spend more time on them. He asked why and my answer focused on the sentence that followed. I never went back to the "why."

              The "why," IMO, is that a single-party system provides no vehicle for dissent. We would have that, effectively, if the Republicans continued to gain seats in all legislatures and state houses, and ended up with a veto-proof trifecta at the federal and state levels. Whatever this dominant party wanted would happen, disempowering those who disagree with them. If you do not see that, imagine how you would feel if that scenario occurred for the party that you are most opposed to. Are you a deep-red Republican? Imagine the only party was the Democrats - with a trifectsa in all statehouses and at the federal level, and a hammer-lock on the courts as well. Are you a deep-blue Democrat? Do the reverse. It will give you a visceral feel for what a single-party system (or no party system, which is equivalent) were to be implemented.
              I don't think that a no party system would be equivalent a single party system. Parties, and their individual members, are susceptible to special interests and party strong arming.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                I don't think that a no party system would be equivalent a single party system. Parties, and their individual members, are susceptible to special interests and party strong arming.
                FYI: That was exactly what struck me - but I'm gonna leave the discussion to you guys - to be fair, there are a lot of people to keep track of right now.

                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  As with Sparko - you are right on this one. I need to respond to fewer posts and spend more time on them. He asked why and my answer focused on the sentence that followed. I never went back to the "why."

                  The "why," IMO, is that a single-party system provides no vehicle for dissent. We would have that, effectively, if the Republicans continued to gain seats in all legislatures and state houses, and ended up with a veto-proof trifecta at the federal and state levels. Whatever this dominant party wanted would happen, disempowering those who disagree with them. If you do not see that, imagine how you would feel if that scenario occurred for the party that you are most opposed to. Are you a deep-red Republican? Imagine the only party was the Democrats - with a trifectsa in all statehouses and at the federal level, and a hammer-lock on the courts as well. Are you a deep-blue Democrat? Do the reverse. It will give you a visceral feel for what a single-party system (or no party system, which is equivalent) were to be implemented.
                  If what I described before doesn't happen (which is possible), then the alternative will: two or more parties will naturally form as people with common interests aggregate to push forward their interests and agenda. People and businesses will back the parties that best align with their interests, and we'll eventually end up right back where we are now, though perhaps with more "parties." Now THAT would probably not be a bad thing. It would certainly break down the polarization of having only two parties in control. I believe that is the German, British, and Israeli system, and it forces parties to join and caucus to achive a sufficient plurality to "form a government."
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    I don't think that a no party system would be equivalent a single party system. Parties, and their individual members, are susceptible to special interests and party strong arming.
                    I would say a no party system is equivalent to a single party system for the simple reason that I don't see any other way a no party system could feasibly accomplished. People will naturally find other politicians with ideologies similar to their own and band together to form parties. To avoid that, you need to have everyone on the same page (eliminating any need for parties), effectively creating a one party state.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      I would say a no party system is equivalent to a single party system for the simple reason that I don't see any other way a no party system could feasibly accomplished. People will naturally find other politicians with ideologies similar to their own and band together to form parties. To avoid that, you need to have everyone on the same page (eliminating any need for parties), effectively creating a one party state.
                      Which, as I think about it, is less likely than a multi-party state. People WILL band together. That, I think, is inevitable. But I don't know if they will end up with one "super-party."

                      Most of this is moot anyway. We're not likely to see the party system end anytime soon. However, with the growing number of "independents," perhaps Jim's dream will get a test.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        The two parties in the US seem to have a large mix of viewpoints within them, due to there only being two options. If both parties split then there may be more ‘choice’ between them. Though I imagine the moderate republicans and big money democrats probably won’t have much to tell the difference between them.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by EvoUK View Post
                          The two parties in the US seem to have a large mix of viewpoints within them, due to there only being two options. If both parties split then there may be more ‘choice’ between them. Though I imagine the moderate republicans and big money democrats probably won’t have much to tell the difference between them.
                          There is, I think, a significant chance of this. Both parties are experiencing a significant shift to the extremes (right and left), leaving a LOT of people feeling that the party no longer represents them. This is partly the reason for the surge in people re-registering as "independent." Perhaps that dynamic will give rise to two new parties serving the left-of-center and the right-of-center, respectively. Or perhaps it will result in a new party of "moderates?"

                          I guess we shall have to see. Far right has it's Trump. Far left has it's Bernie. Not sure who the champions of "right-of-center" and "left-of-center" are, or if there is a champion of "moderates."
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            I guess we shall have to see. Far right has it's Trump. Far left has it's Bernie. Not sure who the champions of "right-of-center" and "left-of-center" are, or if there is a champion of "moderates."
                            In what way is Trump far right? Except for perhaps immigration, he actually seems surprisingly moderate in terms of policy positions. His behavior can be construed as extreme in a number of ways, but not really his policies.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              In what way is Trump far right? Except for perhaps immigration, he actually seems surprisingly moderate in terms of policy positions. His behavior can be construed as extreme in a number of ways, but not really his policies.
                              Several ways...

                              ...his regulatory stance, which is shifting money from individuals to businesses...
                              ...his immigration stance...
                              ...his tax approach...
                              ...his protectionist rhetoric...
                              ...his emerging trade practices...
                              ...but mostly, as you note, his behavior. Specifically his belicose rhetoric to the left, his derogatory language to "other", and his tendency to conspiracy theory

                              I will also note that his fairly recent embrace of "christian" with the accompanying disconnect between what that term is purported to mean, and how it stands against his behavior. From my perspective, the more to the right someone goes, the more they seem to cling to "Christian" and the less obviously Christian they actually are - at least outwardly. And I tend to make my assessments by the outward manifestation of a person's views. You can say, "Christian" all day long, but if you're paying off the porn star so she won't tattle on you? If you're lying, admitting to lying, and take pride in it? If your priority is the golf course and not the religious community you proclaim to be part of? If you need to "get even" with anyone and everyone you think might have slighted you?

                              I find there is more of that kind of behavior at the extremes of the political spectrum. That particular list is more common to the far right.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-28-2018, 07:36 AM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Although much of the attention has been on Republican gerrymandering, let us not forget that gerrymandering is not about one party or another - it is about the party that happens to be in power when the census is completed and redistricting is executed. The Maryland case is a good case in point. Like many of the leaders of the 2010 gerrymandering effort, the Democratic governor there has acknolwegded the desire to skew the districts so Democrats would gain a seat in Congress.

                                Based on recent court activity, there is reason to hope that SCOTUS may finally step in and declare such practices unconstitutional. One can only hope...
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X