Why Does Congress Suck?

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 4 years ago in

One word: gerrymandering.
There are 34 comments:
Male 14,331
[quote]Why does Congress suck?[/quote]

Politicians.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
(next day) I didn`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]What it boils down to is who is willing to compromise. The Democrats have shown time and again that they are.[/quote]
Thanks, Smaggy! That`s the best laugh I`ve had all month! :-D

Now, let`s see if you can name one thing on which the Democrats have compromised -- just ONE!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Hope`s not dead yet brotha. We might get a surprise like Sandra Day O`Connor (or in this case a possibly leftist judge who actually turns out to be the opposite).[/quote]
That would be a first. Since the Dems smeared and slandered Robert Bork, Republican presidents (the Bushs) have only nominated squishy moderates (with the singular exception of Alito), while Democrats only nominate hard-core leftists. Our nominees tend to turn their coats (Stevens, O`Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts) while theirs never do.

If you`re hoping for Sotomayor or Kagan suddenly to find a new respect for the constitution, I`m afraid you`re going to be sadly disappointed.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
That`s the point Crakr, there is no way we can 100% guarantee everyone in the US equal voting power. As I`ve already said that map would have to be updated every ten years meaning we wouldn`t really have a federal republic.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
AJ, the fact that you can`t understand why people blame Republicans more than Democrats for the economy and deadlock in Congress doesn`t mean that it`s difficult to understand. I mean, even FOXNews polls indicate as much (see: here).

What it boils down to is who is willing to compromise. The Democrats have shown time and again that they are. Same can`t be said for the Republicans. At all. So, ergo-waffle-oh, whose fault is it?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I think it`s funny that people still blame the Republicans for this mess.

Why pass something that the President has openly said he would veto? Why vote on something the Senate has openly said don`t bother?

It`s the Democrats that don`t want to move forward.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: The problem with your map is that it doesn`t follow state lines. The states would never allow their borders to be redrawn like that.

I do believe that congressional districts should follow existing county lines (within each state) and should more or less be squareish in shape. Exceptions to that rule would be natural barriers like lakes, rivers and mountain ranges.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Democrat-appointed leftist Supreme Court justices for the rest of their lives. [/quote]

Hope`s not dead yet brotha. We might get a surprise like Sandra Day O`Connor (or in this case a possibly leftist judge who actually turns out to be the opposite).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Of course that map would have to be updated EVERY TEN FU<KING YEARS!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Their Pages and Interns do, but not Congress itself.[/quote]

Oh no you di`nt!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 39,927

Congress doesn`t suck.
Their Pages and Interns do, but not Congress itself.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Now while that may support your worldview, certainly you can`t think it is right, fair, or appropriate.[/quote]
Why not? The Democrats did it to us for over 40 years. I say, turnabout`s fair play.

Congressional districts are usually drawn by state legislatures. Whichever party wins a majority in that state gets to draw the districts to their party`s advantage. This is just another example of the old saying, "elections have consequences."

Besides, I`d rather have to live with Democrat-drawn house districts for 10 years than live with Democrat-appointed leftist Supreme Court justices for the rest of their lives.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
FYI, in case anyone wants to know what happens because of gerrymandering, in the 2012 election all congressional seats were up for election. Democrats received more votes than republicans nationally, however republicans got 234 people elected and democrats got 201 people elected.

Now while that may support your worldview, certainly you can`t think it is right, fair, or appropriate.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
OldOllie

"Gerrymandering is only bad when the other side does it."

I disagree. While I don`t consider myself cemented to either side, I`m sure you view me as a hardline liberal. I would be pissed off if democrats did this, and I know they do.

Congressional districts should be drawn simply and easily and without any human input whatsoever. Run a computer program that equally divides your state into districts as close to square or uniform as possible, taking into account only population without regard for demographics.

Does that not work for some reason?
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@OldOllie: Well that`s true, it CAN alter the balance, which is why it`s done in the first place!
Over time it sort-of "evens out" somewhat.
You`d need to "jiggle the lines" nearly every election to keep one side or the other out. Oh, that`s what they do isn`t it...

I think this guy`s point is that both parties are filled with "party-loyal" politicians, and not politicians who have to answer to the general public.

Gerrymandering Explained On IAB! Fun fun information!

Interesting Article About it
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I`m not trying to pick a fight, but, actually, gerrymandering *can* significantly affect the balance. Districts are drawn on population, not eligible voters. At all. Prisoners, who can`t vote, for example, count. Etc. And there are plenty of clever people out there on both parties who take full advantage or populations who can`t/don`t vote, yet who count against head count.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Gerrymandering is only bad when the other side does it.

BTW, if you don`t think gerrymandering can significantly affect the balance of a state`s congressional delegation, you don`t understand the concept.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@QueenZira: You seem to have forgotten that lumping voters from one side into an area ALSO lumps voters from the other side into THEIR area too!
It`s very difficult to gerrymander for the benifit of only one party, over the long haul. Sure you might change a seat or two through this sort of cheating, but you`ll also GIVE UP a seat or two as well.

So BOTH parties cheat because it makes their lives easier! They don`t need to represent the people, they have "landslide seats"!

Thus some political boot-licker (Jessee Jackson, both Sr AND Jr) can be rewarded with his very own seat in the house. No actual skills required! Other than ass-kissing & money...
0
Reply
Male 4,431
The way I see it is that a bipartisan panel of mathematicians could fix this. It`s not that gerrymandering is good for one party and not the other, it`s that it`s good for the party in power at the time of drawing the districts. And that just amplifies problems. If you want to want to actually represent the "whole" population, you have to have candidates who are more moderate. I don`t mean liberal, I mean ones who are closer to the center, from both sides. The only way to get that, to get representatives who can convince the most people to vote for them from both sides is to do away with this rigging. And I`m speaking about it from the perspective of both parties. Even though I`m a screaming, tree-hugging liberal, I recognize that Dems are just as guilty of this. It needs to be fixed.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Andy- if the shoe fits.


As for the rest of your clap trap, squeeze that tinfoil on tight there junior.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
No, the vra is responsible for what is called Affirmative gerrymandering. This is well known fact. But now you`re basically calling me a racist which means I`m done with you, you can`t be reached.

Just remember, democrats live more densely, this means that they will be more concentrated in even the most square of districts. So if you have 100 people and 10 districts, you`ll see a lot of democrat districts that have 8-9 democrats. This means the republicans would have more even if they have equal numbers. It`s simple math. And most importantly, this would be true with square district.

Don`t call me racist. It`s weird.
0
Reply
Male 39,927

I wanna change my last name to "Mandering"
0
Reply
Female 2,228
The VRA has nothing whatsoever to do with Gerrymandering, unless of course you`re prepared to argue that minorities having the unimpeded right to vote makes it harder for Southerners to draw all white districts.

Districts are not drawn to advantage becuase of "more spread outness," They`re drawn according to more beneficial populations.

You really didn`t see the vid did you?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I agree, Corrine Brown is my former Congresswomen, for some reason.
0
Reply
Male 1,343
Take a breath, breath. Whoosa. Gerrymandering? Look at Corrine Brown`s area in North Florida. Democrat and useless. Sheila Jackson Lee? Same. Most of the bad actors in congress couldn`t get elected without it. Heck most of them can`t get a job, that`s why they`re in government.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I`m aware it`s been done for a long time, but the Voting Rights act took it to another extreme. And I never mentioned the Senate.

My entire post was about districts. It was all about districts and how it inherently favors those who are more evenly spread out, as opposed to dense populations. Did you not read it?
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Andy, Gerrymandering has been done since the 1850s, or did you not see the vid? It has nothing to do with the VRA. And furthermore, it`s a thing that affects *districts*, like for the House, not the Senate.

0
Reply
Male 2,578
In fact, I would think that abolishing Gerrymandering would make many districts in many states even less competitive, and you would probably see most of the minorities get voted out of office.

I would really like to see this guy complain about the voting rights act of 1965 that has been a major cause of this Gerrymandering, by the way.

With that said, Gerrymandering shouldn`t exist, yes.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Listen up 18-35 yr olds, this is why we have to go out and vote, vote like old people, EVERY DAMN ELECTION. Even the off season ones, especially the off season ones, otherwise we`ll get a reprise of the Boehner House. We can`t just settle for being the big scary Blue tide every Presidential election only... We have to be the omnipresent Blue flood!

Okay, pep talk over.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
It`s actually a common misconception that the Gerrymandering would favor Republicans and significantly effect the competitiveness of districts. Why, you ask? Because where the Democrats live, they live very densely and Republicans are much more spread out. Democrats have major population centers that are 90% Democrat - Manhattan, San Francisco, Cook County, Philadelphia, The Republicans have very few places that have such a margin of victory, even in the South.

So let`s say you make the districts as normal shaped as possible. Each district has 600k-700k. The country is 50-50 Republican and Democrat. In districting Manhattan, you get two Democrat seats, but because it`s 90% Democrat

So, even naturally, the Democrats get lumped into more Democrat-dense districts and the Republicans are more evenly distributed.
0
Reply
Male 39,927

What is that you`re saying?
Congress is not entirely honest? They`re not battling to improve of my life?


0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: Why Does Congress Suck? [Rate Link] - One word: gerrymandering.
0
Reply