Oregon Republicans facing arrest

[The Two Jerseys]

Bullshit. Press x to doubt

Doubt all you want. I respect free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. If Republicans somehow won full control in Albany however unlikely I would respect that result as angry and upset as I would be.

[The Archipelago Territory]

Doubt all you want. I respect free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. If Republicans somehow won full control in Albany however unlikely I would respect that result as angry and upset as I would be.

No, you would protest

[Thermodolia]

Because you are basing things on people’s race. Claiming that without the VRA black people are nothing. I find that horribly racist


They’d probably cease to be a state party then. Still doesn’t mean that not having districts will mean that no minorities are in office


What is local government? The states job is to focus on issues that effect the entire state. Local issues are best left up too the local government. That’s why we have a federal system instead of a unitary system like the UK or France.

Also you can have a bicameral system in which the senate is elected by districts overlapping with the counties.


Yet they got rid of those laws at the height of the Jim Crow laws. And furthermore it happened over 100 years ago. Oregon today isn’t gonna ban black people because you remove the voting rights act.


I never said you did that why I asked you the fucking question. You implied that Oregon was racist because it didn’t have a lot of blacks living in it. Therefore it can be assumed that you think other states like New Mexico are also racist because they don’t have a lot of blacks living in it.

I never said African Americans are nothing without the VRA.

You heavily implied it. Here’s the quote:

You asked how we should fix the gerrymandering problem. Not having electoral districts is an easy way to fix it

and that would likely violate the Voting Rights Act as its unlikely in some states people of certain ethnic groups would get elected.

Pretty much sounds that in your mind without the VRA holding the ebil whites back the black communities would be wiped out.

In Southern States I very doubt you'd see much non whites being chosen for the list as they would pick people who could win statewide Its doubtful you'd see as many elected as its no longer district based.

Dude you do realize that PR systems do not focus on candidates right? They focus on the party. Add in the fact that many minorities are part of the democrats and you’d never see what you are claiming.

Again under a party list PR system the people elect parties as a whole. Not individual candidates. And if the democrats didn’t add minorities to their lists, which is just insanity, than I’m 100% sure that said minorities would form their own party.

Some issues may seem local but are in fact not.

Not not really. Issues which are local are pretty fucking clear.

What do you mean by districts overlapping the counties? We have already established many times that electing by counties in inherently unfair as rural counties are unfairly favored.

You wouldn’t be electing by counties. The senators would come from the counties much in the same way that senators come from the states as a whole. Are you going to claim that we should do away with the states having senators because a lot of rural states are over represented?

The senate is supposed to over represent the rural areas because the lower house is based on PR and therefore the parties with the most votes tend to dominate the chamber. It’s a balancing act

I didnt say Oregon would ban blacks if your repealed the VRA.

You heavily implied it.

Many people dont know this but Oregon has a long history of racism. It was founded as a white state and specifically prohibited non whites from moving to the state with a law beginning in 1844. In 1857 it was enshrined into the constitution. The Black exclusion laws were repealed via referendum in 1926 with 62 percent voting in favor.

You know it does more than require certain districts? It ensures everyone has a right to vote in theory.

And yet you act like the only thing it does is require districts.

Nor did I say the state was racist. I love your mischaracterizations.

Your own quote that I posted above disagrees with you

Bullshit. Press x to doubt

Doubt all you want. I respect free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. If Republicans somehow won full control in Albany however unlikely I would respect that result as angry and upset as I would be.

Dude we have several quotes of you almost begging the electors to be faithless and vote Clinton in office. Don’t you lie

[Salandriagado]

Their districts reflect their population and how sparsely populated it is. What would your solution be?

Party List Proportional with a STV senate based around counties.

For example my state has some 149 counties. Each county should get 3 senators each elected by STV bringing the total number to 447, while the HoR would have 700 members elected by single district Party List PR

Sounds reasonable, though I'd prefer something other than counties for the senate setup (shortest splitline, MMIQ, etc.).

[Ors Might]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this? Regardless of whether or not its corporate whining, it’s a fact that a bill that would lead to mass lay offs would be harmful to those people losing their jobs.

Perhaps the idea that industry’s reaction is not always the greatest guide to how the bill would effect them.

That’s not the same thing and you know it

It is the principle that I speak of.

An industry’s reaction to a bill potentially being passed is however a good indication of how they’ll react to it actually being passed.

[Kowani]

Perhaps the idea that industry’s reaction is not always the greatest guide to how the bill would effect them.


It is the principle that I speak of.

An industry’s reaction to a bill potentially being passed is however a good indication of how they’ll react to it actually being passed.

On occasion.

[Ors Might]

An industry’s reaction to a bill potentially being passed is however a good indication of how they’ll react to it actually being passed.

On occasion.

If they’re laying people off just because the bill might be passed, does that indicate to you that this bill will be good for the little guy working in that industry? Does that at all hint at good times to come?

[San Lumen]

I never said African Americans are nothing without the VRA.

You heavily implied it. Here’s the quote:

and that would likely violate the Voting Rights Act as its unlikely in some states people of certain ethnic groups would get elected.

Pretty much sounds that in your mind without the VRA holding the ebil whites back the black communities would be wiped out.

In Southern States I very doubt you'd see much non whites being chosen for the list as they would pick people who could win statewide Its doubtful you'd see as many elected as its no longer district based.

Dude you do realize that PR systems do not focus on candidates right? They focus on the party. Add in the fact that many minorities are part of the democrats and you’d never see what you are claiming.

Again under a party list PR system the people elect parties as a whole. Not individual candidates. And if the democrats didn’t add minorities to their lists, which is just insanity, than I’m 100% sure that said minorities would form their own party.

Some issues may seem local but are in fact not.

Not not really. Issues which are local are pretty fucking clear.

What do you mean by districts overlapping the counties? We have already established many times that electing by counties in inherently unfair as rural counties are unfairly favored.

You wouldn’t be electing by counties. The senators would come from the counties much in the same way that senators come from the states as a whole. Are you going to claim that we should do away with the states having senators because a lot of rural states are over represented?

The senate is supposed to over represent the rural areas because the lower house is based on PR and therefore the parties with the most votes tend to dominate the chamber. It’s a balancing act

I didnt say Oregon would ban blacks if your repealed the VRA.

You heavily implied it.

Many people dont know this but Oregon has a long history of racism. It was founded as a white state and specifically prohibited non whites from moving to the state with a law beginning in 1844. In 1857 it was enshrined into the constitution. The Black exclusion laws were repealed via referendum in 1926 with 62 percent voting in favor.

You know it does more than require certain districts? It ensures everyone has a right to vote in theory.

And yet you act like the only thing it does is require districts.

Nor did I say the state was racist. I love your mischaracterizations.

Your own quote that I posted above disagrees with you

Doubt all you want. I respect free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. If Republicans somehow won full control in Albany however unlikely I would respect that result as angry and upset as I would be.

Dude we have several quotes of you almost begging the electors to be faithless and vote Clinton in office. Don’t you lie

70 percent of Oregon’s population is in the Willamette valley and most of it votes for one party the rest is trending that way. The rest of the state is very rural and red. If you elected by county Republicans would always control the other chamber. It would be a rigged system hence why the Supreme Court said you can’t do that in Reynolds v sims.

[Kowani]

On occasion.

If they’re laying people off just because the bill might be passed, does that indicate to you that this bill will be good for the little guy working in that industry? Does that at all hint at good times to come?

They’ve never done that before…

[Ors Might]

If they’re laying people off just because the bill might be passed, does that indicate to you that this bill will be good for the little guy working in that industry? Does that at all hint at good times to come?

They’ve never done that before…

Which of course means that this bill that would impact their bottom line has absolutely nothing to do with it this time.

[Thermodolia]

You heavily implied it. Here’s the quote:



Pretty much sounds that in your mind without the VRA holding the ebil whites back the black communities would be wiped out.


Dude you do realize that PR systems do not focus on candidates right? They focus on the party. Add in the fact that many minorities are part of the democrats and you’d never see what you are claiming.

Again under a party list PR system the people elect parties as a whole. Not individual candidates. And if the democrats didn’t add minorities to their lists, which is just insanity, than I’m 100% sure that said minorities would form their own party.


Not not really. Issues which are local are pretty fucking clear.


You wouldn’t be electing by counties. The senators would come from the counties much in the same way that senators come from the states as a whole. Are you going to claim that we should do away with the states having senators because a lot of rural states are over represented?

The senate is supposed to over represent the rural areas because the lower house is based on PR and therefore the parties with the most votes tend to dominate the chamber. It’s a balancing act


You heavily implied it.



And yet you act like the only thing it does is require districts.


Your own quote that I posted above disagrees with you


Dude we have several quotes of you almost begging the electors to be faithless and vote Clinton in office. Don’t you lie

70 percent of Oregon’s population is in the Willamette valley and most of it votes for one party the rest is trending that way. The rest of the state is very rural and red. If you elected by county Republicans would always control the other chamber. It would be a rigged system hence why the Supreme Court said you can’t do that in Reynolds v sims.

No it wouldn’t be. Your electing senators by having the districts match up to the county lines.

If the republicans control one of the chambers oh well. I guess the democrats and their coalition partners can’t run roughshod over the rest of the state

[Thermodolia]

Party List Proportional with a STV senate based around counties.

For example my state has some 149 counties. Each county should get 3 senators each elected by STV bringing the total number to 447, while the HoR would have 700 members elected by single district Party List PR

Sounds reasonable, though I'd prefer something other than counties for the senate setup (shortest splitline, MMIQ, etc.).

The only reason I said counties was because it’s pretty fucking hard to gerrymander a county. Though shortest splitline would work as well

[San Lumen]

70 percent of Oregon’s population is in the Willamette valley and most of it votes for one party the rest is trending that way. The rest of the state is very rural and red. If you elected by county Republicans would always control the other chamber. It would be a rigged system hence why the Supreme Court said you can’t do that in Reynolds v sims.

No it wouldn’t be. Your electing senators by having the districts match up to the county lines.

If the republicans control one of the chambers oh well. I guess the democrats and their coalition partners can’t run roughshod over the rest of the state

Oh well that’s your answer? A rigged election where the chamber cannot change hands? That violates one man one vote but you others don’t believe in that

[Akaran Islands]

No it wouldn’t be. Your electing senators by having the districts match up to the county lines.

If the republicans control one of the chambers oh well. I guess the democrats and their coalition partners can’t run roughshod over the rest of the state

Oh well that’s your answer? A rigged election where the chamber cannot change hands? That violates one man one vote but you others don’t believe in that

Are you aware of what the United States Senate is?

[Thermodolia]

No it wouldn’t be. Your electing senators by having the districts match up to the county lines.

If the republicans control one of the chambers oh well. I guess the democrats and their coalition partners can’t run roughshod over the rest of the state

Oh well that’s your answer? A rigged election where the chamber cannot change hands? That violates one man one vote but you others don’t believe in that

It’s not a rigged system. If the democrats can’t win elections for a senate then I guess they need better candidates. Besides in OR you could have 144 senators, with four per county-district elected by STV. Or you could split the state into 15 districts and have 6 senators per district for a total of 90 senators.

If the democrats can’t win in that situation then I guess the democrats suck. Besides it’s not lie there wouldn’t be just two political parties. You’d most likely have upwards of 26 parties contesting the election

[San Lumen]

Oh well that’s your answer? A rigged election where the chamber cannot change hands? That violates one man one vote but you others don’t believe in that

It’s not a rigged system. If the democrats can’t win elections for a senate then I guess they need better candidates. Besides in OR you could have 144 senators, with four per county-district elected by STV. Or you could split the state into 15 districts and have 6 senators per district for a total of 90 senators.

If the democrats can’t win in that situation then I guess the democrats suck. Besides it’s not lie there wouldn’t be just two political parties. You’d most likely have upwards of 26 parties contesting the election

and most of rural Oregon would likely always vote for 4 Republican senators and the 70 percent in the valley get shafted. How is it not rigged?

Districts also have to contiguous and compact and roughly equal in population.

[Uiiop]

They’ve never done that before…

Which of course means that this bill that would impact their bottom line has absolutely nothing to do with it this time.

"They done that without this claim being true."
"Well it doesn't mean this claim is false."
I mean it doesn't but this debate is all based on something being proven. not a could but an is.

[Thermodolia]

It’s not a rigged system. If the democrats can’t win elections for a senate then I guess they need better candidates. Besides in OR you could have 144 senators, with four per county-district elected by STV. Or you could split the state into 15 districts and have 6 senators per district for a total of 90 senators.

If the democrats can’t win in that situation then I guess the democrats suck. Besides it’s not lie there wouldn’t be just two political parties. You’d most likely have upwards of 26 parties contesting the election

and most of rural Oregon would likely always vote for 4 Republican senators and the 70 percent in the valley get shafted. How is it not rigged?

You don’t know that. In a multiparty democracy the rural Oregonians would probably vote for either the republicans, constitution, libertarian, or create their own party.

Plus the 70% in the valley and those on the coast would pretty much have the majority in the lower house. Rural people get the upper house so they have their voices heard and the urban population gets the lower house and they also get their voices heard.

I can’t for the life of me understand why you would hate a more democratic and fairer system

Districts also have to contiguous and compact and roughly equal in population.

No they don’t. Nowhere does it say that districts have to be equal in population nor compact. If that was the case then you wouldn’t have the mess that is Ohio.

Also you could just have the shortest splitline method to decide the districts. For that you just draw a line which cuts the state in half and then continue to cut the two halves in half using the shortest line. Repeat until you have 15 districts

[San Lumen]

and most of rural Oregon would likely always vote for 4 Republican senators and the 70 percent in the valley get shafted. How is it not rigged?

You don’t know that. In a multiparty democracy the rural Oregonians would probably vote for either the republicans, constitution, libertarian, or create their own party.

Plus the 70% in the valley and those on the coast would pretty much have the majority in the lower house. Rural people get the upper house so they have their voices heard and the urban population gets the lower house and they also get their voices heard.

I can’t for the life of me understand why you would hate a more democratic and fairer system

Districts also have to contiguous and compact and roughly equal in population.

No they don’t. Nowhere does it say that districts have to be equal in population nor compact. If that was the case then you wouldn’t have the mess that is Ohio.

Also you could just have the shortest splitline method to decide the districts. For that you just draw a line which cuts the state in half and then continue to cut the two halves in half using the shortest line. Repeat until you have 15 districts

The fact that the upper house cannot change hands makes it a rigged election and it would be stuck down in court as violating one man one vote.

Yes districts do have to be contiguous compact and roughly equal in population. Where did you hear otherwise?

[Thermodolia]

You don’t know that. In a multiparty democracy the rural Oregonians would probably vote for either the republicans, constitution, libertarian, or create their own party.

Plus the 70% in the valley and those on the coast would pretty much have the majority in the lower house. Rural people get the upper house so they have their voices heard and the urban population gets the lower house and they also get their voices heard.

I can’t for the life of me understand why you would hate a more democratic and fairer system


No they don’t. Nowhere does it say that districts have to be equal in population nor compact. If that was the case then you wouldn’t have the mess that is Ohio.

Also you could just have the shortest splitline method to decide the districts. For that you just draw a line which cuts the state in half and then continue to cut the two halves in half using the shortest line. Repeat until you have 15 districts

The fact that the upper house cannot change hands makes it a rigged election and it would be stuck down in court as violating one man one vote.

How? How in the fucking hell will a legislature elected by STV not change hands. Please explain that one to me.

Also the fact that you are claiming a system which might give the rural and right wing more power in a single house is unfair pretty much proves that you don’t accept the results of a free and fair election.

Yes districts do have to be contiguous compact and roughly equal in population. Where did you hear otherwise?

Um the fact the gerrymandered districts exist pretty much shows otherwise.

What I’m confused about is why am I, a Titoist and who has been called NSG’s Stalin, is advocating for better democratic system and you the supposed liberal is arguing against it? In what fucking world does that make sense?!

[San Lumen]

The fact that the upper house cannot change hands makes it a rigged election and it would be stuck down in court as violating one man one vote.

How? How in the fucking hell will a legislature elected by STV not change hands. Please explain that one to me.

Also the fact that you are claiming a system which might give the rural and right wing more power in a single house is unfair pretty much proves that you don’t accept the results of a free and fair election.

Yes districts do have to be contiguous compact and roughly equal in population. Where did you hear otherwise?

Um the fact the gerrymandered districts exist pretty much shows otherwise.

What I’m confused about is why am I, a Titoist and who has been called NSG’s Stalin, is advocating for better democratic system and you the supposed liberal is arguing against it? In what fucking world does that make sense?!

Why should someone have more power in one chamber because they are on a farm or in a small town? Do you not believe in one man one vote?
Given the demographics and partisan lean of rural Oregon it’s likely they would always vote republican and the upper house would never change hands. That would not be a free and fair election

I have said many times I support irv or mmp but if I don’t support the system you do then I’m supporting the status quo right?

I don’t think you understand what contiguous and compact means

[Thermodolia]

How? How in the fucking hell will a legislature elected by STV not change hands. Please explain that one to me.

Also the fact that you are claiming a system which might give the rural and right wing more power in a single house is unfair pretty much proves that you don’t accept the results of a free and fair election.


Um the fact the gerrymandered districts exist pretty much shows otherwise.

What I’m confused about is why am I, a Titoist and who has been called NSG’s Stalin, is advocating for better democratic system and you the supposed liberal is arguing against it? In what fucking world does that make sense?!

Why should someone have more power in one chamber because they are on a farm or in a small town?

The bicameral chambers would be there so that theres balance. Yes the rural areas would most likely be over represented in the senate but the urban areas would be over represented in the house so it all works out. Neither House would have more power than the other.

In order for a democracy to work everyone must have a voice. The fact that you refuse to allow people to have a voice proves that you don’t like democracy

Do you not believe in one man one vote?

No I don’t. I believe in one man as many votes as needed

Given the demographics and partisan lean of rural Oregon it’s likely they would always vote republican

Doubt it. New parties would form pretty quickly. You could have the Oregon Agrarian Party, the Cascadian Party, and the Rural Association of Oregonians all running for election in addition to the dozens of other parties the US already has. Like I said there would probably be 26 parties running in the election.

and the upper house would never change hands. That would not be a free and fair election

Again under an STV system I fail to see how that’s possible

[qoute]I have said many times I support irv or mmp but if I don’t support the system you do then I’m supporting the status quo.[/quote]
Because you literally shoot down any attempt or suggestion of a more democratic system with shit like “it violates the VRA” or “it violates one man one vote” or “it would get overturned”. Because of all that I don’t believe you even want a change in the election system.

I dare you to explain to me what STV and Party List PR elections are and how they work. I dare you

I don’t think you understand what contiguous and compact means

So you’re admitting that you support Gerrymandering? Because that’s the natural outcome of that line

[Salandriagado]

Sounds reasonable, though I'd prefer something other than counties for the senate setup (shortest splitline, MMIQ, etc.).

The only reason I said counties was because it’s pretty fucking hard to gerrymander a county. Though shortest splitline would work as well

MMIQ's sort of light shortest splitline, but avoids really long, thin constituencies, and plays nicely with rivers and the like. Mostly it makes the maps look prettier than shortest splitline, and avoids stupid situations like accidentally cutting cities in half, or this mess:

[Salandriagado]

How? How in the fucking hell will a legislature elected by STV not change hands. Please explain that one to me.

Also the fact that you are claiming a system which might give the rural and right wing more power in a single house is unfair pretty much proves that you don’t accept the results of a free and fair election.


Um the fact the gerrymandered districts exist pretty much shows otherwise.

What I’m confused about is why am I, a Titoist and who has been called NSG’s Stalin, is advocating for better democratic system and you the supposed liberal is arguing against it? In what fucking world does that make sense?!

Why should someone have more power in one chamber because they are on a farm or in a small town? Do you not believe in one man one vote?
Given the demographics and partisan lean of rural Oregon it’s likely they would always vote republican and the upper house would never change hands. That would not be a free and fair election

I have said many times I support irv or mmp but if I don’t support the system you do then I’m supporting the status quo right?

I don’t think you understand what contiguous and compact means

You realise it's entirely possible to gerrymander using compact districts, right? Indeed, under reasonable assumptions, you can gerrymander to get >70% of the seats on 50% of the vote.

The problem with fixing it to counties is that over a long enough timespan, you can end up with rotten boroughs.

[Thermodolia]

The only reason I said counties was because it’s pretty fucking hard to gerrymander a county. Though shortest splitline would work as well

MMIQ's sort of light shortest splitline, but avoids really long, thin constituencies, and plays nicely with rivers and the like. Mostly it makes the maps look prettier than shortest splitline, and avoids stupid situations like accidentally cutting cities in half, or this mess:

Ya that is a problem with shortest splitline