Re-apportioning the House

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re-apportioning the House

Postby Sandy » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:58 pm

Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby Haruo » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:11 pm

Notably, while this increase in House seats would have given Clinton more electors, it would not have given her enough to have changed the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.

Sandy?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12346
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby Sandy » Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:04 pm

It's not about figuring out potential ways that Clinton would have won. Trump cheated by getting foreign help. Bottom line is that the electoral college has long since outlived the protection of the privileged for which it was designed. Our President needs to be elected by the people, not by the states.

As the population grows, it makes it more difficult for congressmen to connect with the people who elect them and contributes to the partisan polarization. The idea that California isn't really entitled to equal representation with Wyoming because of the way two thirds of their voters choose to cast their ballots is ridiculous.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:44 am

Much about the electoral college was to preserve the influence of "slave states" which benefited from the Three-Fifths Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for congressional and electoral representation, although no slave had voting rights. It allowed influence without voters.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7343
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby KeithE » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:16 am

Sandy wrote:https://qz.com/865380/to-fix-the-electoral-college-increase-the-size-of-the-house-of-representatives/

Yes this should help somewhat. American democracy would be more representative.

But, imo, the bigger threat to true ("we the people") democracy is the high influence of corporations in campaign finance (to get favored people elected) and lobbying (to continue the influence on elected officers). Campaigns should be government funded (modest funding <<$100M could be allotted compared to $6.5B spent in 2016 and $5B spent on 2018 midterms). It used to be that media outlets were required to have public service announcements as a condition of having an FCC license. Lobbying should be limited to research reports (self-funded); wining/dining/gifting/bribing eliminated.

The media (news outlets, talk shows, internet presence) also play an outdo influence on voters. Rigorous honesty (fact checking) is needed - not easy to do but demanding measurable DATA, documented research on policy issues, and accurate quotes from the politicians is a good start. Good voters avoid the tribal/partisan influences and seek DATA, research, and accurate quotes with context. Political ads should be disallowed, imo.

Churches and corporations must stay out of recommending candidates. Our nation is supposed to be about what the people want.

Also attitudes about what the government can do positively has to change, imo. Anti-government, anti-tax fervor has been stoked for decades (Rush, Koch Brothers, ALEC, Reagan/Bush43 chief among them) all to aid corporate bottom lines and thereby executive salaries. Insane and still increasing inequality, environmental degradation, and ballooning deficits are the results of the move to the right since 1980.

Yeah I know all this is “blue sky” platitudes (that you have heard from me in the past) but it is still what is needed.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby William Thornton » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:56 am

Snowflake's chance in Gehenna. Another way Dems try to get power. Run a decent candidate. That should work.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12141
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby William Thornton » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:58 am

I'd make a small point that unions, corporations, and churches are all made up of people. I'm flummoxed as to why my mod/lib friends always are searching for ways to stifle political speech. I think it's because of a subliminal lust for power to be secured by only the technocrats and elitists.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12141
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby KeithE » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:03 am

William Thornton wrote:Snowflake's chance in Gehenna. Another way Dems try to get power. Run a decent candidate. That should work.

If you are referring to my vision of a better America made possible by better elections, there is not a “snowflake” of partisanship in that vision. Yet you complain about it being "Another way Dems try to get power."
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby KeithE » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:38 am

William Thornton wrote:I'd make a small point that unions, corporations, and churches are all made up of people. I'm flummoxed as to why my mod/lib friends always are searching for ways to stifle political speech. I think it's because of a subliminal lust for power to be secured by only the technocrats and elitists.

Good point - that unions should not be recommending candidates either (as well as other civic groups formed for non-political goals).

Insofar as people in unions, corporations, churches are merely expressing their political points, I’m all in for good fact filled political points given by union/church/corporation members. But organizational stamping of approval/non-approval of those viewpoints should be avoided and organizational funding or endorsements of candidates should be not allowed, imo. Corporations are particularly bad in these regards because they have much wealth to invest in self-serving policy. Money is not speech - Citizens United must be overturned. You can either say I understand or continued to be flummoxed.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby William Thornton » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:46 am

That's the conundrum, organizations are people groupings. SCOTUS has dealt with all this and will continue to do so, I expect. It's a mess.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12141
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby KeithE » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:54 am

Let me ask some questions. Would you approve it if I posted on Facebook that BaptistLife recommends Bernie Sanders for the next President? Or that the US try militarily to end the Gazan Siege? Or that Medicare-for-All should be adopted in the US?

Organizations should not speak for their members.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby Sandy » Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:27 pm

William Thornton wrote:I'd make a small point that unions, corporations, and churches are all made up of people. I'm flummoxed as to why my mod/lib friends always are searching for ways to stifle political speech. I think it's because of a subliminal lust for power to be secured by only the technocrats and elitists.


I've never seen that suggested by any mod/libs here. Controlling the flow of money into political contributions is not "stifling political speech," it is preventing government from being bought and paid for. Being able to contribute directly to the campaigns of politicians who will become elected government officials is not free speech, it is the foundation of corruption. I am not aware that any union, corporation or church has had its political speech "stifled".

Republicans find it difficult to win elections when they can't suppress the vote by finding ways to restrict access to the polls. They are opposed to early voting and favor unconstitutional restrictions on the access to the polls. The quirks of indirect ways to bypass individual expression, like the electoral college and putting a numerical limit on the number of members of the house both are rooted in historical attitudes toward voter suppression. Expanding the house would only increase the access of individual citizens to their government, so conservatives are against it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby William Thornton » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:50 pm

KeithE wrote:Let me ask some questions. Would you approve it if I posted on Facebook that BaptistLife recommends Bernie Sanders for the next President? Or that the US try militarily to end the Gazan Siege? Or that Medicare-for-All should be adopted in the US?

Organizations should not speak for their members.


As long as unions could command gummit to collect dues from employees' paychecks, even those who didn't want to join the union, then, yes, I object to that. If BL endorsed Bern I would have the choice of staying a part of it or not. On some matters I'd merely dissent.

Your framing and solutions are simplistic. I don't deny that there are serious issues.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12141
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Re-apportioning the House

Postby Sandy » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:58 pm

KeithE wrote:Churches and corporations must stay out of recommending candidates.


As far as I know, though it's been talked about, churches still cannot recommend or endorse candidates without losing their tax exempt status. I made a few people in one church I served angry when I wouldn't waive the building rental fee for the local Eagle Forum group to meet there. Almost all of the members were from our church and a couple of ladies had keys, but the policy was that any group not related to the ministry of the church had to pay to use the facility. I got some dirty looks at the business meeting but the church supported the policy when I told them that making an exception for them, but not the jazzercise group that met in the gym five days a week, would be considered a political contribution. I'd leave any church that endorsed a political candidate of either party.

There's nothing preventing any group of people from political speech. But I don't think a group should be able to raise money in order to get past limits on individual contributions.

I have participated as a volunteer "lobbyist" (we called it "legislative advocacy") in both Pennsylvania and in Washington, DC. It's hard to get the attention of a politician, or even get a meeting with most of them, without money or the ability to deliver votes.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests