Repos trying to stack the deck in California - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #31 09-26-2007, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Certainly not. I want devolution of power to the lowest possible constituency for representative democracy. It's still bicameral legislative with separate executive and judiciary. I just don't like the way the Republicrats have stacked the deck against any other parties being able to gain political power.

I've felt the same way before. I think I'm just in a phase currently where I think that the bicameral system here lends itself to a two party system. Other country's parliamentary systems seem not to.

It's the always struggle between idealism and realism.

peragro · #32 09-26-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

And the rural peoples would get their tractors from where? And don't tell me they can farm w/o them. They're not going to, in the foreseeable future.

BTW dude, is that albatross around your neck starting to stink? You repeatedly ask a question with an obvious answer, and when I give you the answer like giving a lollipop to a child, you think you've made some great breakthrough or painted me into a corner.

Uno mass, por favor: no one is arguing that our way of life yields greater prosperity and liberty for its citizens -- the debate is about how to best interact with the rest of the world so as to minimize resentment and foster healthy evolution in places mired in backwardness.

Most all of our attempts to do it at the point of a gun have not worked too well.

Dude,

I have no idea what point you're trying to convey other than I have a stinky albatross (live in the desert, no sea birds here) and I hand out candy to children.

You do a quite admirable job of painting yourself into corners without anyone else to help.

Who is shooting at whom in this thread? I thought we were talking about a ballot initiative, not gun control.

BTW, already got a tractor. It's been running since the 50's, probably go a little longer... Moral of the story: my tractor will be running long after there's no food in Berkeley. See, ya went and made me say that after I'd gone and [/whine]. I don't know why you bring that out in me???

Dude.

cmac2012 · #33 09-26-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

Maybe the Republicrats should try the old fashioned methods, like registering everybody in the cemetery. That kept Mayor Daley in office for decades. Oh, wait, he was a Democan, wasn't he?

Then there's that Mary Poppins thing from last time.

Point is, either party would lie cheat and steal to get elected. Shocking, I know....

I imagine that has happened but I've heard talk of studies that indicate the extent of that has been pretty minor. I agree that both sides have snakes, but I'm not sure the Demos have risen (sunk) to Rove's level yet.

cmac2012 · #34 09-26-2007, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Dude,

I have no idea what point you're trying to convey other than I have a stinky albatross (live in the desert, no sea birds here) and I hand out candy to children.

You do a quite admirable job of painting yourself into corners without anyone else to help.

Who is shooting at whom in this thread? I thought we were talking about a ballot initiative, not gun control.

BTW, already got a tractor. It's been running since the 50's, probably go a little longer... Moral of the story: my tractor will be running long after there's no food in Berkeley. See, ya went and made me say that after I'd gone and [/whine]. I don't know why you bring that out in me???

Dude.

Wrong. Moral of the story: tractors are built in factories, not on farms.

Odd that you're singing the praise of the farming man, during a time when something (couldn't be rampant population growth) is bringing about the conversion of 4 to 5 sq. miles of farmland a DAY to urban use and the nonstop pressure to make the remaining land feed the teeming masses erodes the hell out of it, in general.

My notion is that all of us should take more responsibility for our food chain -- gardens in every back yard that is suited for it; more urban pea-patches, etc. I've had several gardens (oh baby, vine ripened cherry toms), not at present sadly, don't have the land for it.

But I don't buy the notion that urban life has nothing to offer the world or that the teeming masses in SF and LA should let their country cousins do all the voting. Where do farmers send their family members when they get a really serious illness? To some spartan rural clinic (valuable as those may be) or to a modern hospital in a major city? Cities must offer something to rural folks else there'd be no reason for rural folks to exchange their produce for urban cash -- IOW there would be no trade.

As for the albatross, I can hardly believe you think you've caught me in some foot in mouth comment with the remark in your sig line. Be my guest, display away.

tankdriver · #35 09-26-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ The smaller the constituency, the greater the diversity of opinion. Greater diversity of opinion is EXACTLY what the major parties do not want -- they maintain power by appealing to the average among all voters. This is why the speak in partisan terms in the primaries and soothing platitudes in the general election. In the primary election they are trying to motivate their own party, not both parties.

I'll bet the majority of voters in a general election hold their nose when they vote -- they don't give a crap about who they are voting FOR, they fear whom they are voting AGAINST.

By allowing a diverse group of electors you allow a greater array of possible votes.

For example, in my particular district there are a large number of libertarian voters. I'll bet there's a good chance that if people could vote by district that at least one elector from my state would vote Libertarian. Would he get elected? No. But it would be one vote NOT going to Republicrats and that is a victory of a sort. It might even grow from there.

I'm not so sure that would happen. The Dems and Reps have been gerrymandering districts to be overwhelmingly one or the other. Maybe a vote or two here or there would go, but I don't know that many more than that would.

t walgamuth · #36 09-26-2007, 11:24 PM

Mary Poppins?

Tom W

Palangi · #37 09-26-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Mary Poppins?

Tom W

Was registered as a voter in Ohio during the last presidential campaign. Several of her friends registered also. Don Duck, Mike Mouse, etc. All courtesy of the Ohio NAACP, as I recall.

cmac2012 · #38 09-27-2007, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I'm not so sure that would happen. The Dems and Reps have been gerrymandering districts to be overwhelmingly one or the other. Maybe a vote or two here or there would go, but I don't know that many more than that would.

I dunno if I'm paranoid or what but it seems lately the Repos make the first move to restack the deck in new ways -- such as the unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas. Odd that spearhead man in that thing, DeLay, managed to bring his ownself down shortly thereafter. L'il hubris overdose.

LaRondo · #39 09-27-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

It's the always struggle between idealism and realism.

Try 'Personal Success' and you will find it to be the defining link, combining idealism and realism.

t walgamuth · #40 09-27-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

Was registered as a voter in Ohio during the last presidential campaign. Several of her friends registered also. Don Duck, Mike Mouse, etc. All courtesy of the Ohio NAACP, as I recall.

REally?

Did they vote repo or demo?

As far as that goes, how do you know they are not real people?

Tom W

Botnst · #41 09-27-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I dunno if I'm paranoid or what but it seems lately the Repos make the first move to restack the deck in new ways -- such as the unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas. Odd that spearhead man in that thing, DeLay, managed to bring his ownself down shortly thereafter. L'il hubris overdose.

EVERY legislature responsible for redistricting does the redistricting to favor the majority party of that state. This is why there is so little turn-over in Congress. If legislatures arranged districts so that they would approach party parity then folks in Congress would have great incentive to accommodate and compromise. When they are in safe seats they can be intransigent.

If there were a viable 3rd party it would be more difficult to carve-up districts into 2 exclusive colors. There would always be a third color pushing for a reduction in overwhelming power between those two. At the present time most legislatures just wink and divide-up the districts so that districts are strongly one color or the other with the majority trying to impose weakness on the minority party.

Take the "solid south" for example. For over a century the democrats controlled the state legislatures and successfully minimized Republican power as well as institutionalizing racial discrimination. Ronald Reagan undermined that machine which still didn't lose it's actual grip until the early 1990's, coincident with the election of Clinton, a Democrat. But that same period witnessed insurgence of Repos into state houses in unprecedented numbers.

B

tankdriver · #42 09-27-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

EVERY legislature responsible for redistricting does the redistricting to favor the majority party of that state. This is why there is so little turn-over in Congress. If legislatures arranged districts so that they would approach party parity then folks in Congress would have great incentive to accommodate and compromise. When they are in safe seats they can be intransigent.

If there were a viable 3rd party it would be more difficult to carve-up districts into 2 exclusive colors. There would always be a third color pushing for a reduction in overwhelming power between those two. At the present time most legislatures just wink and divide-up the districts so that districts are strongly one color or the other with the majority trying to impose weakness on the minority party.

Both Dems and Reps gerrymander to solidify seats. Neither party is really interested in competing with each other. It's more like a game of Risk, where each player picks their territories.

One of the most important things Ralph Nader did with his campaign is reveal rules on the books (written by both parties) that make it impossible or nearly impossible for a 3rd party to successfully get on ballots. I think there was one rule in Texas which required him to be in two places at once. So I don't think with districts over 90% one side or the other and absurd rules, a 3rd party is going to get a foothold very often.

Botnst · #43 09-27-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Both Dems and Reps gerrymander to solidify seats. Neither party is really interested in competing with each other. It's more like a game of Risk, where each player picks their territories.

One of the most important things Ralph Nader did with his campaign is reveal rules on the books (written by both parties) that make it impossible or nearly impossible for a 3rd party to successfully get on ballots. I think there was one rule in Texas which required him to be in two places at once. So I don't think with districts over 90% one side or the other and absurd rules, a 3rd party is going to get a foothold very often.

It sure isn't going to be an easy thing. Here locally, the more interest there is in 3rd party candidacies, the more the major parties struggle to find common ground with voters who are drifting to those parties. That is a good thing.

I'm pretty pragmatic in that regard. If the major parties address those issues that are important to be because of the leverage impsoed by a 3rd party, my point of view has an advocate. That's my goal and I don't really give a damn who person is nor which party the belong to -- I just want what I want.

Don't care about the union, just fix the damned plumbing.

B

cmac2012 · #44 09-27-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

EVERY legislature responsible for redistricting does the redistricting to favor the majority party of that state. This is why there is so little turn-over in Congress. If legislatures arranged districts so that they would approach party parity then folks in Congress would have great incentive to accommodate and compromise. When they are in safe seats they can be intransigent.

If there were a viable 3rd party it would be more difficult to carve-up districts into 2 exclusive colors. There would always be a third color pushing for a reduction in overwhelming power between those two. At the present time most legislatures just wink and divide-up the districts so that districts are strongly one color or the other with the majority trying to impose weakness on the minority party.

Take the "solid south" for example. For over a century the democrats controlled the state legislatures and successfully minimized Republican power as well as institutionalizing racial discrimination. Ronald Reagan undermined that machine which still didn't lose it's actual grip until the early 1990's, coincident with the election of Clinton, a Democrat. But that same period witnessed insurgence of Repos into state houses in unprecedented numbers.

I'll admit it's all out of whack both sides. My point was that the Repos upped the ante by doing it mid-decade . . . . first. Real ground breakers, those guys.

Palangi · #45 09-27-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

As far as that goes, how do you know they are not real people?

Mostly because the perp got caught and confessed.....