OT: Sort of funny

Trump won 76% of counties with Cracker Barrels, huh?

Maybe if Real America laid off the biscuits and gravy a while they wouldn't have to worry about "socialized healthcare" so much.

Mostly the article is about Gerrymandering of voting districts. With Iowa being the exception.

It is a problem everywhere and the only cure is an independent, nonpartisan election committee for drawing or revising electoral boundary maps.

Here in my home province, in the 1970s, the powers that be made a map that had a finger like protuberance into a separate neighbourhood (Gracie's Finger) that resulted in a certain politician getting re-elected year after year. Didn't always work mind you, but more often than not.

That Fickle Finger of Fate (remember Laugh-In?) finally caused the government to form a non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission which operates reasonably free of government interference.

Mind you our provincial government keeps trying to 'fix' things at the commission:

Sigh.

John

Wow, it's almost as if Conservatives would prefer a theocratic Christian king-for-life!

Maybe if you fool lefties didn't destroy the cities and states that you run you might be able to win something. The fact is that, over the last few election cycles, you've lost upwards of a thousand seats in state legislatures. Politics starts at home.

If it's such a desirable product, one might wonder why Conservatives have to resort to the usual underhanded tricks like re-districting and voter intimidation to "sell" it.

The Right has their ideas about things but plz leave the rest of us out of it

It's called "winning", something you candy-assed leftists know nothing about.

There's a much better, and easier, solution - proportional representation.

Sadly, it leads to multiparty democracy, so that neither the British Labour Party or the British Conservatives are going to go for it.

It also leads to coalition governments - which work really well, but force politicians to work quite hard, providing the kind of rational justifications for their policies that persuade other politicians, rather than just impressing the electorate.

Europe thrives with them. The British reject them as new-fangled.

Did I forget to mention that the party in power in our province of BC is called the Liberal party? The conservative party here rarely elects anyone to the provincial legislature.

Destroy our cities? Do you know ANYTHING about Canada? Real estate in the major cities in Canada is booming and has been since about 2009. Average house price in Vancouver (3rd largest city in Canada) is closing in on $1,700,000 CAD - about $1,250,000 USD. Toronto (largest city) is similar. Hardly the sign of cities in decline even with the recent price 'correction'.

ANY party in power will try to fix things so they win and the opposition loses. The trick is how to make the playing field reasonably level so the game is fair (ish).

That balancing act is called politics.

John

Yeah, we have looked at proportional representation here in Canada, voted on it in BC a few years back, but it was defeated here. Our federal governing party (The Liberal Party of Canada) promised to look at new voting processes for the next federal election, however that has now been shelved.

It is difficult for parties in power to divest themselves of power - it takes a groundswell of pissed off electors to force them...

I am not convinced that proportional representation is a distinct improvement, however it is likely better than first past the post that we currently have and is well worth a try.

Churchill appears to have said "Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

John

reports/

udaries/

on.

bour Party or the British Conservatives are going to go for it.

rce politicians to work quite hard, providing the kind of rational justific ations for their policies that persuade other politicians, rather than just impressing the electorate.

Australia has the single transferable vote system, which does better by min ority parties, but not much.

Having parliamentary districts with a single local representative each does seem to be fatally flawed.

In the Netherlands I spent 19 years living with proportional representation and coalition governments, and it looks remarkably good when you see it up close and get some feel for the details. We'd met the mayor of Nijmegen a couple of times before she made the transition to national politics and bec ame minister for the interior - she was an impressive performer in both j obs.

There are more forms of democracy than just those that Churchill had in min d.

True. Democracies are evolving - Intelligent design?

I believe that the point Churchill was making is that any form of democracy was better than fascism, communism, unrestricted monarchy, feudalism, etc.

People need a real say in how they are governed. When you take it away, then you end up with some form of fascism usually masquerading as a benevolent dictatorship. Eventually the people will win out - but 'eventually' can take hundreds of years...

Some of the folks here on S.E.D. seem to think it is well and proper that people lose their right to self-governance, saying things like - It serves them right - etc.

I always find it better to look for ways to communicate better rather than shutting people out. Part of democracy is hearing the other person out and then trying to see things from their point of view.

That doesn't seem to work for everyone though.

Pity.

John

Oh, I didn't know that you could "win" at the game of Constitutional Republic. Where in the Constitution do they outline the end conditions?

PS: Didn't Mom ever tell you that cheaters never win?

krw is a fascist; he believes that politics is an inefficient roadblock standing in the way of a theocratic dictatorship.

It is amusing to talk with him about it though, in the way that talking with one of those "AI" chat bots some of us of the era learned to code up on an Apple IIgs in 1987 was amusing.

SO. TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS. >_

That's silly. Just Google "Pelosi redistricting."

How Democrats Fooled California?s Redistricting Commission "The citizens? commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party?s interests."

I think what's happened is that Democrats' promise of free stuff taken from someone else hasn't been able to deliver a better life. It's that simple, really. So they're getting voted out.

I'm not sure Trump was the best choice, but he's at least a huge upgrade so far.

Cheers, James Arthur

Some ideas win. If you ever had any, you might have noticed.

There is no cheating going on at all. Of course you're too stupid to know better. You can't even read a simple piece of paper.

Oh, a Cannck. Then STFU! You have no input.

There's no cheating going on that krw can perceive. Gerrymandering is busin ess as usual as far as he is concerned, and bizarre identification requirem ents are a regular part of keeping the left-voting riff-raff away from elec tion booths, which clearly should only be accessible to right-minded, corre ctly behaved, right-voting members of the community.

"Cheating" is the sort of activity that produces election results he doesn' t like.

tricting-commission

James Arthur fails to note that the Democrats have never been able to deliv er enough "free stuff" - universal education or universal health care - to make much of a difference. The founding tax evaders did manage to set up a political system where people with money have enough political clout to han g onto it, even when it is clearly in their interest to spend some of it ma king the working class healthier and more productive (as they are in Scandi navia and Germany).

He male and white. The fact that he can't do joined up thinking doesn't mat ter to people like James Arthur.