It’s one thing to make an automatic association when hearing the word concentration camp and another thing to be offended by the word.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
That's true, after my comment I went and looked at the statistics of death tolls in wars throughout history.
You are right that what separates it is the recency bias, but I'd also say the modernisation of warfare, the methods used and the damage done in short amount of time, added to the potential to actually destroy the whole world, is what makes WW2 in particular the most vital point in modern human history. But all that is for a different thread as it derails the topic.
This all reminds me of few seeming to understand what ‘impeachment’ means...currently a pet peeve of mine.
An apt comparison and I share your feelings on it.
Concentration camps and extermination camps were different.
Its appropriate to use the words concentration camps with what is happening now.
Its appropriate to use the words concentration camps with what is happening now.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ss-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering
Not sure if this is being discussed but this surely has some serious ramifications for democracy in the USA.
The supreme Court has basically allowed free reign on gerrymandering to the states. So many minorities in red states will completely and utterly have their votes rendered useless.
As bad as it is now imagine how worse it will get. Crazy
Not sure if this is being discussed but this surely has some serious ramifications for democracy in the USA.
The supreme Court has basically allowed free reign on gerrymandering to the states. So many minorities in red states will completely and utterly have their votes rendered useless.
As bad as it is now imagine how worse it will get. Crazy
Evoking nazis is the point.
It’s because the Constitution severely limits the power of the federal government when it comes to elections.
Unfortunately, what Roberts wrote is true.
I've been getting asked a lot recently why Clinton stayed in office even though he was impeached. Come on, man
You can bypass the SC by a new Voting Rights Act which can inclue non gerrymandering as part of it.
That would require Democrats to agree to not gerrymander as well.
I’d be interested to see how congress would lay out the power to do that though.
And that would be just.
I want honesty in elections.
Though I am a socialist, every vote should count no matter who.
It would be just, I agree.
But it’s also like expecting Congress to pass a law requiring term limits.
That would need to be the next step.
Its the President who sets the direction of the country by using the office.
Most people want term limits.
Don’t miss the point though. You’re asking politicians to vote for their own unemployment.
Great idea to us. Terrible idea to them.
Do you believe Bernie is only interested in his own welfare?
Other true progressives are exactly like him.
To serve others, you cannot serve yourself.
This is what the 'revolution' is about.
I don’t trust any politicians.
I like Bernie. And I like Warren. I don’t hero worship them. To believe you’re the right person to be president takes some self serving and hubris.
Its nothing to do with liking someone. I do not hero worship Bernie.
I always judge people on what they do.
That is why I always say, we must elect people who have served. Not just the military. But service to others.
Until you have served, you cannot lead.
By that act of service, your self interest diminishes. The need to better the lives of others grows.
Eventually there is no real choice.
Doing the right thing becomes natural.
You’re hoping for statesmen in the era of politicos.
The moment we do not look for decency, honesty..yes statesmenship we are 'accepting'.
That is what brought us to where we are.
I'm not looking for saints. Saints make poor politicians.
But what I said is fundamental.
Basic standards.
We must have them.
Otherwise we are lost.
Mmmm
Stick with Trump then, his standards are very basic.
You still do not understand.
I understand very well.
Why aren’t districts based off counties? What was the reasoning?
Districts are population based, so to get the needed number of people, you have to cross county lines.
I think to a certain extent they are. It's just that there are over 3000 of them and the counties themselves are not a population based aggregate but a fluke of geography. I'd also guess that there are far more rural counties than urban districts. At some point someone somewhere has to work out how to amalgamate them in such a way that a Representative represents more or less the same number of people (1 member 1 vote is considered to be enshrined in the constitution). It's at the point of amalgamation that the gerrymander inevitably kicks in if there's no effective oversight.
Don’t district lines split through counties though?
The legal argument would have to be that gerrymandering literally disenfranchises people. It doesn’t. And both parties do it.
Look, I hate gerrymandering, but I don’t know of anything in the Constitution that pertains to it other than to say that it, as an elections issue, is a matter left to the states.
Reason #76478 why the Constitution needs an update
It would indeed require an amendment, but that amendment itself would be tricky so as to not just pass the partisanship of redistricting to Congress.Reason #76478 why the Constitution needs an update
I understand your sentiment and I'm actually just looking on it at a straight legal basis aswel. I also believe it disenfranchises people.
All around America you have placesand pockets that are only minority communities. These modern day types of gerrymandering that use sophisticated programs to create districts are used to suppress the minority vote
In Cooper v. Harris (2017) the court found that North Carolina had properly racially gerrymandered their districts to surpress the black vote. One of the few times Clarence Thomas had any fecking use. To say that gerrymandering doesn't disenfranchise people is just incorrect.
Make congressional seats distribution proportional to the statewide popular vote. Do away with individual congressional district altogether.
They do and they don't - depending on the state in question and the available demographics.
For instance here's a map of the Texan districts for its local senate:
Here's the map of Texan congressional districts (US):
And here's a map of the Texas counties:
As you can see, in most cases the district borders tend to follow the boundaries of counties. Where they don't (due to population discrepancies) someone somewhere makes the decision as to who to include and exclude.
It disenfranchises in the same way the Electoral College does. As a resident of South Carolina, my vote for president has basically never counted, even when Obama won.
The problem is that legally, that isn’t what disenfranchisement means.
In Cooper v. Harris they were able to prove a clear racial motivation in the drawing of those districts. You’d have to be able to do that many times over to accomplish what you’re saying, and you’d have to be able to do it for districts gerrymandered by both parties.
The case that was just decided was about the same districts in North Carolina, which were redrawn on partisan, rather than racial, demographic data after the Cooper decision. The recent case also included Democratically gerrymandered districts in Maryland.
I am very much in favor of this, even wrote about it in college.
So long as local parties get to nominate to the list instead of having nominees forced upon them.
There’s obviously the risk of chosen candidates being party loyalists that don’t represent the needs of their appointed district, but then again it’s not as if that isn’t the case presently.
As @Ekkie Thump said, then it comes down to how candidates are chosen for “the list”. I’m not decided on what I think that method is.
Be great to see who the Alabama local Republican Party end up nominating.