Republicans ensure Democratic victories for the near future.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezzer, it's not a part of Obamacare; it's from Community Health Alliance, TN's health insurance co-op

xuenchen


Wrong. It's 100% correct.

No, it's not.

The district votes are counted one for one. No electoral college.

I'm well aware. But, again, Obama won the popular vote also both times.

And you are still ignoring all of the variables such as people not voting in off-year elections or people not being "allowed" to vote for other reasons. There are people of many different political parties who are not included in the process. Furthermore, a lot of "independent" people vote for different parties all the time. One year they may vote Dem; the next, Republican. Just a few years ago the House was run by Democrats. Do you really think the voting demographics really changed that much? No.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beezzer, it's not a part of Obamacare; it's from Community Health Alliance, TN's health insurance co-op

Yes.

And they are giving out free phones as an incentive to signing up. They even received a multi-million dollar federal "grant" to do so.

reply to post by beezzer


Yes, but that's still not Obamacare doing it nor the Obama administration. Furthermore, again, as the earlier link I posted illustrated, this "free phone" thing has been going on for a long time and is not tax-payer funded.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yes, but that's still not Obamacare doing it nor the Obama administration. Furthermore, again, as the earlier link I posted illustrated, this "free phone" thing has been going on for a long time and is not tax-payer funded.

Are you honestly going to say that the current administration did not provide a multi-million dollar grant to give away phones during an Obamacare sign-up?

Really?

reply to post by AlienBuddha


I believe the Lifeline program is funded by government money throught the FCC.

Tis taxpayer money.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


It's listed as a federal loan for 73 million dollars!

Wait until Obama raises the debt ceiling unilaterally.
Then come back with the poll numbers.
Listen closely to what they are saying.

Most dems are more "concerned" with the debt ceiling than the cr.

Obama says things like , ss checks still go out on time with a govt shutdown, but not when the economy shuts down. Speaking in reference to the debt ceiling.

Is he going to be the ss recipients "savior" when the debt ceiling isn't raised by congress?

I smell a power grab.

reply to post by AlienBuddha


Let's simplify this.

The House goes through a complete vote every two years.

The last election was in Nov 2012 (less than a year ago)

The House has a majority of Republicans elected by people in each district.
People in district "A" only vote for those candidates in that district etc. etc.

The districts have apprx equal populations.

Therefore, the House majority represents the majority of the population.

The districts get reorganized per the Constitution in order to equalize the population.

Civics 101.

That's why we are seeing the political infighting right now.

It's called checks and balances, aka sour grapes (depending on which side is sour)

and I put the wrong numbers up before;

House seats by party;

232 (R) x 711000 population = 164,952,000 people
200 (D) x 711000 population = 142,200,000 people

Total national votes are irrelevant compared to the Congressional District votes.

reply to post by xuenchen


In a perfect world that would be the case, but Democrats won 1.7 million more votes than Republicans did in 2012 for the house races.

Gerrymandered districts in a number of GOP held state capitols resulted in cutting up democratic voters into republican heavy districts.

You can see the results at Wikipedia if you don't believe me.

So the democrats won the majority but still lost the house.

links234
reply to post by xuenchen

 

In a perfect world that would be the case, but Democrats won 1.7 million more votes than Republicans did in 2012 for the house races.

Gerrymandered districts in a number of GOP held state capitols resulted in cutting up democratic voters into republican heavy districts.

You can see the results at Wikipedia if you don't believe me.

So the democrats won the majority but still lost the house.

Right.

And that was all legal and constitutional right ?

If not, where's the court challenges and rulings ?

Then do a count of represented population.

like it or not, this is what we have to live with.

This is what's absolutely frosts the Democrats (I think).

If people don't like the law, change it.

Some people are !!!

LOL at this thread...

Democratic victories are going to happen in democratic states, and republican victories in their states.

Nothing changes, republican supporters who support them still support them.

I'm a libertarian, and I support what the republicans are trying to do, they've actually gained a vote here.


All these polls, are a crock; if you poll 100 democrats, then you'll get these results.

Or if you poll a liberal community, then guess what?

xuenchen
Right.

Does this mean you're conceding that the GOP holds the house despite having fewer popular votes than democrats thus not truly representing the 'majority' of Americans?

And that was all legal and constitutional right ?

It was and it wasn't. The state legislature's are, essentially, free to draw the maps how they please. Only when they egregiously failed to do so (See the 2003 Texas court case) will the judicial branch step in. In most cases the judicial branch will just throw the case to the legislatures asking that they redraw them to be little less partisan without any strings attached.

If not, where's the court challenges and rulings ?

There are almost always court challenges followed by limp-wristed rulings. Most recently was the behind-closed-doors Wisconsin gerrymandering it ultimately ended with a 3 judge panel redrawing just two of the districts.

Then do a count of represented population.

like it or not, this is what we have to live with.

This is what's absolutely frosts the Democrats (I think).

If people don't like the law, change it.

Some people are !!!

Democrats are demonstrably under represented in the house right now. The popular vote number prove that.

reply to post by links234


The total national popular votes means zero in congressional districts.

You know this as well as anybody.

It's all about total population in each district.

That's why they have a 'problem'.

The best example is Nancy Pelosi.

She never got more than a few thousand votes in any election.

Same with Boehner.

Yet we know the power.

Unless you can show me the actual population count for each district and sort by party ?

data tables




General info;

Currently there are 435 representatives divided among the 50 States. Each of these representatives is elected by the voters of a congressional district, defined as an area established by law for the election of representatives to the U.S. Congress. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in the State as practicable, based on the decennial census counts. The number of congressional districts in each State may change after a decennial census. After the number of seats assigned to the individual States is determined (apportionment), the task of drawing the new congressional districts (redistricting) is generally given to each State legislature. Congressional district boundaries may be changed more than once during a decade.

reply to post by xuenchen


Saying the house represents more people simply given the number of seats they hold is a misnomer. Perfect example is my congressman: Votes party line 90+% of the time. Won the last election by ~1.5%.

That's not representative of his district in the least bit. There are more democrats than republicans in this country. There's at least 1.7 million people unrepresented or under-represented.

The house does not represent the majority of the population.

links234
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Saying the house represents more people simply given the number of seats they hold is a misnomer. Perfect example is my congressman: Votes party line 90+% of the time. Won the last election by ~1.5%.

That's not representative of his district in the least bit. There are more democrats than republicans in this country. There's at least 1.7 million people unrepresented or under-represented.

The house does not represent the majority of the population.

But he still *won* the popular vote election right ?

Many Democrats vote split party. So do Republicans. So do Libertarians. etc etc

Oh well.

change the laws.

until then...............................

reply to post by beezzer


I didn't say that. Nice strawman.

gladtobehere

The dont need to raise the debt ceiling and dont need to "shut down government".

But they refuse.

Ehh. They kind of do need to raise the debt ceiling. Defaulting is not an option. Shutting down the government is and always has been, a political grandstanding move. In reality, it costs more to shut down and then open back up than it does to keep it running in the first place. Both parties know this. The longer it goes, more and more republicans will pressure Boener to bring the clean appropriations bill to a vote and it will pass.

Then we play the whole game again with the debt ceiling in a couple of weeks.

Maybe Democrats should listen more closely to their Senate Leadership.....

I think Harry Reid should stand by his guns.

Yes, absolutely 100%

He should stand by his arguments against raising the debt ceiling....

He said it's not fair to raise the debt for our grandchildren...

He said we need to reduce debt, not increase it !!!!

" Harry Reid in '06: Raising debt limit last thing we should do, will weaken country, hurt economy "

You were Right Harry...

What Changed Your Mind ?

When the people see how much ObamaCare is really going to cost they are not going to be happy.

Obama is claiming the cost for Obamacare is going to cut cost for health insurance and the insurance companies are going to milk it for every cent. I bet the insurance companies will win

Give it two to three years and the republicans will be proved right and will win in the end.