The General Election

[Moiraine]

Read somewhere if election was based of congressional districts Repubs would win every time, problem with this is Gerrymandering and moving districts but nonetheless it is still really interesting.

How is it "really interesting" ? Gerrymandering is awful. It disenfranchises voters, particularly minorities. Do you really want the Republicans to win every time, even when they lose the popular vote? Does that seem very Democratic to you? The electoral college has gotten it wrong before (2000) but that's extremely rare. Using congressional districts, it would be wrong a lot more often because of gerrymandering.

 

Now if they made MUCH stricter laws about gerrymandering, (e.g. - a district must have 6 sides max unless it borders a body of water) it could be an option. But that would never happen.

[BigRedBuster]

Let's be clear here that both parties have used this.

 

I would be in favor of this system.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/

[Red Five]

Trump affair. Least surprising news ever.

 

[zoogs]

Do you think the UN will be able to purchase the U.S. at discount, or only on Black Friday?

[Red Five]

[Moiraine]

 

It would be nice if Hispanics were a big reason Trump doesn't become President. Although, if he hadn't started off with the wall, maybe he never would have been the nominee, which is really weird. But a lot of people got excited about that for some reason.

[HuskermanMike]

 

Take this into account also- how many people are going to be Excited to voter for Clinton?

 

And how many will feel that they MUST vote against Donald Trump at any cost?

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how many guys would want to fight for their country under Hillary if we ever got in a war.

 

 

What on earth does this mean?

 

It means if We get in a war with Russia or another country,

How many guys would want to be told what to do by a women? Lots of Trump supporters would refuse to go to war for her in my opinion. Its just something to think about but probably won't happen.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Take this into account also- how many people are going to be Excited to voter for Clinton?

And how many will feel that they MUST vote against Donald Trump at any cost?

 

I wonder how many guys would want to fight for their country under Hillary if we ever got in a war.

 

What on earth does this mean?

 

It means if We get in a war with Russia or another country,

How many guys would want to be told what to do by a women? Lots of Trump supporters would refuse to go to war for her in my opinion. Its just something to think about but probably won't happen.

 

 

Anyone who gives a f#*k about this shouldn't give a f#*k about it. If a member of the military doesn't want to do what the President tells them because she's a woman, put them in jail. That's the only concern anyone should have about this possible "issue."

 

One would hope the number of people in our military who would break the law because they are sexist would be a small number.

[HuskermanMike]

 

Read somewhere if election was based of congressional districts Repubs would win every time, problem with this is Gerrymandering and moving districts but nonetheless it is still really interesting.

How is it "really interesting" ? Gerrymandering is awful. It disenfranchises voters, particularly minorities. Do you really want the Republicans to win every time, even when they lose the popular vote? Does that seem very Democratic to you? The electoral college has gotten it wrong before (2000) but that's extremely rare. Using congressional districts, it would be wrong a lot more often because of gerrymandering.

 

Now if they made MUCH stricter laws about gerrymandering, (e.g. - a district must have 6 sides max unless it borders a body of water) it could be an option. But that would never happen.

 

Considering most people have to look up what gerrymandering is, I think its interesting. If you don't fine but don't degrade my opinion to say its interesting cause others may enjoy to read it. It is not a great argument to say its not interesting when I intended it for everyone to see, if you don't like it that's your opinion and I respect that, but I know others may find it interesting. The electoral college is what the founding fathers wanted if we go away from it, this could be really bad for this country. So to say it got an election wrong is a valid argument, but I disagree because they wanted it to be that way for the posterity of America. It would be good for a state like California to switch to congressional districts because it is such a big state, all the other states would be fine to stay the way they are.

 

I know full well we won't switch to congressional districts for all states and I never said we SHOULD do it I just stated a fact that I was told.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Read somewhere if election was based of congressional districts Repubs would win every time, problem with this is Gerrymandering and moving districts but nonetheless it is still really interesting.

How is it "really interesting" ? Gerrymandering is awful. It disenfranchises voters, particularly minorities. Do you really want the Republicans to win every time, even when they lose the popular vote? Does that seem very Democratic to you? The electoral college has gotten it wrong before (2000) but that's extremely rare. Using congressional districts, it would be wrong a lot more often because of gerrymandering.

 

Now if they made MUCH stricter laws about gerrymandering, (e.g. - a district must have 6 sides max unless it borders a body of water) it could be an option. But that would never happen.

 

Considering most people have to look up what gerrymandering is, I think its interesting. If you don't fine but don't degrade my opinion to say its interesting cause others may enjoy to read it. It is not a great argument to say its not interesting when I intended it for everyone to see, if you don't like it that's your opinion and I respect that, but I know others may find it interesting.

 

 

I argued with you. That's going to happen here and is within the rules. You can tell people not to argue/disagree with you if you want but you're just going to come off as being thin-skinned.

[HuskermanMike]

 

 

 

Read somewhere if election was based of congressional districts Repubs would win every time, problem with this is Gerrymandering and moving districts but nonetheless it is still really interesting.

How is it "really interesting" ? Gerrymandering is awful. It disenfranchises voters, particularly minorities. Do you really want the Republicans to win every time, even when they lose the popular vote? Does that seem very Democratic to you? The electoral college has gotten it wrong before (2000) but that's extremely rare. Using congressional districts, it would be wrong a lot more often because of gerrymandering.

 

Now if they made MUCH stricter laws about gerrymandering, (e.g. - a district must have 6 sides max unless it borders a body of water) it could be an option. But that would never happen.

 

Considering most people have to look up what gerrymandering is, I think its interesting. If you don't fine but don't degrade my opinion to say its interesting cause others may enjoy to read it. It is not a great argument to say its not interesting when I intended it for everyone to see, if you don't like it that's your opinion and I respect that, but I know others may find it interesting.

 

 

I argued with you. That's going to happen here and is within the rules. You can tell people not to argue/disagree with you if you want but you're just going to come off as being thin-skinned.

 

I know that and in the bold I stated I respect your opinion. I guess if you want to judge me and call me "thin-skinned" go ahead, but it doesn't even add to this discussion. I never even said you can't argue with me, are you letting your emotions get in the way maybe? Regardless of that I made a claim, you disagreed with it, you don't have to tell me the rules I know them very well and I know many people think differently then me. I wanted to give people an interesting fact for them to have, that was my main message regardless of what others say.

 

This election is bad but I want a vote for America and the betterment of America not because I dislike one candidate like others are doing. Hillary will continue to lie to the American people and get nothing done like she has done for thirty years in my opinion. We are in a bad situation with either of them, so lets hope 2020 comes fast.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

Read somewhere if election was based of congressional districts Repubs would win every time, problem with this is Gerrymandering and moving districts but nonetheless it is still really interesting.

How is it "really interesting" ? Gerrymandering is awful. It disenfranchises voters, particularly minorities. Do you really want the Republicans to win every time, even when they lose the popular vote? Does that seem very Democratic to you? The electoral college has gotten it wrong before (2000) but that's extremely rare. Using congressional districts, it would be wrong a lot more often because of gerrymandering.

 

Now if they made MUCH stricter laws about gerrymandering, (e.g. - a district must have 6 sides max unless it borders a body of water) it could be an option. But that would never happen.

 

Considering most people have to look up what gerrymandering is, I think its interesting. If you don't fine but don't degrade my opinion to say its interesting cause others may enjoy to read it. It is not a great argument to say its not interesting when I intended it for everyone to see, if you don't like it that's your opinion and I respect that, but I know others may find it interesting.

 

I argued with you. That's going to happen here and is within the rules. You can tell people not to argue/disagree with you if you want but you're just going to come off as being thin-skinned.

 

I know that and in the bold I stated I respect your opinion. I guess if you want to judge me and call me "thin-skinned" go ahead, but it doesn't even add to this discussion. I never even said you can't argue with me, are you letting your emotions get in the way maybe? Regardless of that I made a claim, you disagreed with it, you don't have to tell me the rules I know them very well and I know many people think differently then me. I wanted to give people an interesting fact for them to have, that was my main message regardless of what others say.

 

You're doing it again. Still not sure how my original response got the weird reaction you had to it. It was pretty damn harmless as far as arguments here are concerned. Also, asking how it was interesting wasn't a rhetorical question. I thought maybe you'd explain it instead of getting offended.

[Moiraine]

Here's a nice graphic from 270towin.com showing a bunch of different predicted electoral college tallies including 538.

 

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

It begins.

 

Yeah, it is rigged against you. All them awful Latinos voting. You rigged it yourself, moron.

[Danny Bateman]

And as soon as I post that, this happened...