Republicans would be a minority party if they didn’t cheat. The other alternative? Appealing to voters, but who wants to do that?
Republicans Have To Cheat in Order To Remain a Viable Party
Republicans would be a minority party if they didn’t cheat. The other alternative? Appealing to voters, but who wants to do that?
14 Comments. Leave new
After some years of analyzing local election results in my neo-fascist county*** of rural western Oregon, it became clear that those who registered as “Independent” were merely Republicans (surprisingly) capable of shame … of being called “Republican.”
*** what one might imagine as a replica of 1890 Mississippi.
But Ted, given the policies of «Democrats» like Mr Schumer and Ms Pelosi (which you yourself regularly and justifiably casitgate), is the difference between these two parties really so great ? Or is this not rather to be regarded as an example of factional strife and dirty tricks among the single war party which governs (?) the US for the profit of those who run the country ?…
Henri
No, Henri.
The parties are not very different.
They fight for show but dare not tread on the toes of those who own both of them.
And the Supreme Court ruled that elections are not important enough to be protected from being meddled with by gerrymandering parties.
I would think that there might be at least one party that would strenuously object to holding distorted unrepresentative meaningless elections.
But then I would be wrong.
The US goes around the world spending billions of dollars every day for spreading democracy.
Maybe that’s why there is no money left for democracy in the Heimatland.
> Supreme Court ruled that elections are not important enough to be protected from being meddled with
Not quite right. They ruled that they do not have the authority to tell states how to vote, ‘cuz Constitution. It falls under the legal area incorrectly labelled “states rights” (actually it’s “powers” but I digress) The Voting Rights Act only ensured that blacks could vote – not that their votes had to count for anything. The Constitution says that the states’ citizens should vote for their Electoral representatives “the same way they vote for governor,” but does not elaborate on specifics.
I don’t like it either, but them’s the facts. It would take an act of congress to change it – and well they should. Personally, I’d like to throw out regional representation altogether but that’s not gonna happen.
So in order to elect a Congress to eliminate gerrymandering one must first elect a Congress by means of gerrymandering.
So by the S.C., gerrymandering must first proceed to the extreme in order that it can finally be eliminated.
That’s like trying to elect big money politicians who are going to remove money from elections.
It’s kind of like Lincoln “freeing” slaves where he couldn’t enforce their freedom and not freeing slaves where he could enforce their freedom.
Again, those who could do it won’t, and those who might want to do it, can’t.
I can’t take arguments seriously that take rulings of the political parties of all three branches seriously.
And please do not tell me the fairy tale that the Supreme Court is not a political branch of government.
That would be too naïve and/or disingenuous for me to even respond to.
> So in order to elect a Congress to eliminate gerrymandering one must first elect a Congress by means of gerrymandering.
Yes. We agree on that. The existing biases tend to reinforce the existing biases. That’s a bad thing. We agree. ‘k?
> And please do not tell me the fairy tale that the Supreme Court is not a political branch of government.
Fine with me. I won’t tell you that fairy tale. Instead, I’ll note that I didn’t tell you that fairy tale in the first place. The title “Justice” is a mockery at this point. We agree there, too, k?
But back to what I actually did post: they were technically correct in that they really don’t have jurisdiction over “states’ rights” …
… but aren’t you the one who’s been screaming about how the sixteenth amendment is a Very Bad Thing ‘cuz States’ Rights? Can’t have it both ways ..
I can have it “anyway I want it” because the Constitution is ignored by the people who claim to support it and who absolutely won’t support it if it gets in the way of running the empire.
This is not rule of law, it is rule by the assholes who claim that whatever they say the law is, is what the law is, because they own the courts and elections and police and the military funded by 2 billion dollars a day.
And conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, don’t think that anything other than submission and supportive lip service is appropriate “because the Constitution”.
“So in order to elect a Congress to eliminate gerrymandering one must first elect a Congress by means of gerrymandering.
“Yes. We agree on that. The existing biases tend to reinforce the existing biases. That’s a bad thing. We agree. ‘k?”
No. We both DO agree that that is the meaning of what the S.C. said. But not that the meaning is TRUE.
You won’t say that the S.C. ISN’T correct when they say it, JUST because they said it and have the military might of the parties to suppress dissent.
Saying something is true according to a document they have broken allegiance to is to state it without any justification at all, but only with the support of what they don’t believe, that government should be subject to fair elections.
Yours is the authoritarian conservative mindset. No objection, only saying that the people will have to work harder to overcome this corruption that the Supreme Court let stand.
We don’t agree? So then you DO think gerrymandering is good thing? I don’t. But then, you can’t seem to decide whether you think “states rights” are a good thing or not. It’s kind of hard to have a conversation with someone who keeps contradicting himself.
Tell ya what, first make up your own mind(s) and then we’ll talk. But please, as always, restrict your comments to things I actually say – rather than this stream of abject nonsense you keep attributing to me.
k?
“We don’t agree? So then you DO think gerrymandering is good thing?”
Aside from your stupid posturing I think we can agree that the above is just stupid.
Yes, Glenn, we agree that the argument is stupid. However it is *your* argument.. In addition to being stupid, it’s also self-contradictory, illogical, irrational, and completely irrelevant to anything I’ve ever said. It is, in fact, a childish temper tantrum having more to do with your indignation at being corrected than the discussion itself.
Now that we’ve that out of the way – would you care to discuss the issues of the day? … or anything I have actually said?
They’ve got another tool in their arsenal. Conservatives’ brains are wired for fear more than liberals’. People react much more strongly to fear than they do to warm fuzzy feelings.
taz why conservatives talk about Scary Things alla time. Like the gubbmint taking away your penis, or Mexican Rapists, or how gays are trying to destroy your own, personal, marriage!
Party registration doesn’t mean much since 20 States do not do it. This includes some strong Republican States like Texas and Georgia. Also 30% of the registered Democrats are located in NY & CA. A strong presence in CA or NY doesn’t do anything for elections in different States.
of course democrats gerrymander too! in fact there was a popular meme showing a heavily gerrymandered district with the caption “if republicans need to do this to win, they don’t deserve to win”. trouble with the meme is…it was a democrat district!