Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[chr0naut]

Well, that was the purpose of the electorial college all along. It was to stop the population centers from deciding on the presidential election. 

Wait, you guys are all up in the air about gerrymandering, and yet your whole system is BASED upon prevention of government for the people, of the people and by the people? Was it all just an empty slogan, then?

In a popular vote, all it takes to win is a few big cities to vote the same way. All the less populated areas, 90% or more by area, would have no say in anything. 

That is why you have Local government, with direct authority and law-making responsibility over its more local constituency, then intermediate government (like State governance) which merely federates the various Local governments (to achieve a balance between them), then a national federation, which combines the interests of the various intermediate (States) governance, to achieve a 'wider-view' balance between them. Then, all strata are served with as much equity in representation of the citizenry as can be humanly possible.

Granting national Federal law-making and supremacy over all other governmental arms (as exists right now in the USA) is what creates a situation where State governance, Local governance and the citizenry in turn are disenfranchised and disempowered.

So why have the farce of a popular vote than means nothing? It must be an expensive waste of public money?

I just looked it up. Your 'political showcase of fluffery - November 2024' cost $15.9 billion - ouch!

It is not a perfect system but it at least forces the candidates to campaign all over instead of just in the big cities. 

And that is a good thing? LOL!

So, if some candidate breezes through a state or city that they rarely visit, won't visit again, and that they really know nothing about, with all the usual hoopla and crap, do you think that is good at all for the local constituents?

It's not a football game.

It has importance that the people you choose to represent your wishes, do actually represent your wishes. You don't want someone just famous for being famous.

If you think this makes being in a big city weaken your vote, then why do you stay there?

I don't live in the USA. Nor do I live in a big city. I used to live in a city, but I moved. I moved to another country, as well.

I was born in Sydney, Australia and lived there for my entire childhood and as such, am a citizen of Australia.

I now live in a rurally-zoned property (the area is noted for its dairy produce) located somewhat South of the city of Auckland in the the Pacific island nation of New Zealand.

It is quite lovely, quiet, green and temperate here, and the local volcanic nature creates some spectacular natural scenery, and I have no desire to further relocate.

And, like most other democracies on the planet, where I live has a direct proportional system of election, which is highly resistant to any attempts to gerrymander.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Wait, you guys are all up in the air about gerrymandering, and yet your whole system is BASED upon prevention of government for the people, of the people and by the people? Was it all just an empty slogan, then?


That is why you have Local government, with direct authority and law-making responsibility over its more local constituency, then intermediate government (like State governance) which merely federates the various Local governments (to achieve a balance between them), then a national federation, which combines the interests of the various intermediate (States) governance, to achieve a 'wider-view' balance between them. Then, all strata are served with as much equity in representation of the citizenry as can be humanly possible.

Granting national Federal law-making and supremacy over all other governmental arms (as exists right now in the USA) is what creates a situation where State governance, Local governance and the citizenry in turn are disenfranchised and disempowered.

So why have the farce of a popular vote than means nothing? It must be an expensive waste of public money?

I just looked it up. Your 'political showcase of fluffery - November 2024' cost $15.9 billion - ouch!


And that is a good thing? LOL!

So, if some candidate breezes through a state or city that they rarely visit, won't visit again, and that they really know nothing about, with all the usual hoopla and crap, do you think that is good at all for the local constituents?

It's not a football game.

It has importance that the people you choose to represent your wishes, do actually represent your wishes. You don't want someone just famous for being famous.


I don't live in the USA. Nor do I live in a big city. I used to live in a city, but I moved. I moved to another country, as well.

I was born in Sydney, Australia and lived there for my entire childhood and as such, am a citizen of Australia.

I now live in a rurally-zoned property (the area is noted for its dairy produce) located somewhat South of the city of Auckland in the the Pacific island nation of New Zealand.

It is quite lovely, quiet, green and temperate here, and the local volcanic nature creates some spectacular natural scenery, and I have no desire to further relocate.

And, like most other democracies on the planet, where I live has a direct proportional system of election, which is highly resistant to any attempts to gerrymander.

The way our government is set up is in three parts.  Congress is elected by popular vote in each district. Our president is elected by the going through the electorial college. The supreme Court is appointed. 

This is to balance out the power of the people. The  president being voted in that way counterbalances the power of the big cities.  Every state gets represented by the same number of votes as they have members in Congress.

Let's watch a couple of videos about this shall we.







Now in practice, the president is almost always the highest count in the total votes of the people if they were counted that way. I think that did not happen two times in 250 years.

[chr0naut]

Actually the 'one-person, one-vote' system as described and interpreted by you, would create too much absolute power in the U.S. system Presidency. 

Please exaplain how?

Based upon, well, the experience of the lasdt 230+ years of everywhere else in the world, it would create a government with more parties and independents with seats at the table, not less.

It could also create limits on The Legislative and Judiciary Branches. 

Again, how?

And is limitation of central government a bad thing? Like, really?

Tyrannical dictatorships that oppress their citizens are unlimited central government. Historically, they define what 'unlimited central government' is in practice.

Perhaps that's one reason they created an Electoral College system like they did.  Keep in mind votes for President are "Popular" vote (aka Mob Rule)

Citizens aren't a mob.

Mobs can have some citizens in them, but mobs usually consist only of limited clusters of radicalized individuals.

Citizens are "the people" mentioned in your founding documents and the vast majority of the citizenry are apolitical - simply wanting peace, personal freedom, security and prosperity, protected under the law. They are neither criminal nor violent.

Only the very worst of bad guys think that they need to be protected from the good guys.

in all States regardless of Congress Districts

Think about that. The District of Columbia - politicians granted the power equivalent a State full of citizens, when they are already the decision makers with power to create and amend laws, with power of the purse over the nation!

It gives those currently in power a greater hold on to that power if they can also vote themselves in both their State and also their special made up district.

And think about this:

Young independents grapple with frustration over the two-party system

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party have the mandate of the masses, but they retain power - always. The corruption is evident. The system IS the corruption.

and Senate makeup, thus emphasizing population voting as intended.     The general EC system also safeguards against absolute mob power rule common in many overpopulated voting areas like we see in some States and big Cities.

The population is forced to select one of two options that aren't the best of the best.

You are ruled from very far above by the Henry Ford adage: "They can have any colour they want, as long as it is black".

It is neither democracy, nor liberty.

[govshill2]

Please exaplain how?

Based upon, well, the experience of the lasdt 230+ years of everywhere else in the world, it would create a government with more parties and independents with seats at the table, not less.


Again, how?

And is limitation of central government a bad thing? Like, really?

Tyrannical dictatorships that oppress their citizens are unlimited central government. Historically, they define what 'unlimited central government' is in practice.


Citizens aren't a mob.

Mobs can have some citizens in them, but mobs usually consist only of limited clusters of radicalized individuals.

Citizens are "the people" mentioned in your founding documents and the vast majority of the citizenry are apolitical - simply wanting peace, personal freedom, security and prosperity, protected under the law. They are neither criminal nor violent.

Only the very worst of bad guys think that they need to be protected from the good guys.


Think about that. The District of Columbia - politicians granted the power equivalent a State full of citizens, when they are already the decision makers with power to create and amend laws, with power of the purse over the nation!

It gives those currently in power a greater hold on to that power if they can also vote themselves in both their State and also their special made up district.

And think about this:

Young independents grapple with frustration over the two-party system

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party have the mandate of the masses, but they retain power - always. The corruption is evident. The system IS the corruption.


The population is forced to select one of two options that aren't the best of the best.

You are ruled from very far above by the Henry Ford adage: "They can have any colour they want, as long as it is black".

It is neither democracy, nor liberty.

Many answers to your questions are here: ... _ _ _ ...
Several interesting sources with it all  


Bing Search ---- "how did the forefathers forsee mob rule"

How the Founding Fathers Saw the Danger of Mob RuleThe Founding Fathers feared mob rule—what they called the tyranny of the majority—because they believed that in a pure democracy, the passions of the majority could override the rights of minorities and erode liberty www.liberty-lighthouse.com+1. They saw historical examples, such as the Salem witch trials and other mob-driven persecutions, as proof that uncontrolled popular rule could lead to injustice and even violence www.sierrathread.com.

 

 

Historical and Philosophical Roots

• James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention” and that factions—groups united against the public good—could easily dominate in small, direct democracies www.liberty-lighthouse.com+1.
  
• Thomas Jefferson rejected the idea of an “elective despotism” and feared that unchecked majority rule could strip away rights and property from the less powerful www.liberty-lighthouse.com.
  
• The founders drew on classical and Enlightenment thought, which often viewed direct democracy with suspicion, associating it with instability and short-lived governments legalclarity.org.
   
  

 

Structural SafeguardsTo prevent mob rule, they designed a constitutional republic rather than a direct democracy:

• Separation of powers divided the government into three branches, each with checks on the others, so no single majority could dominate www.liberty-lighthouse.com+1.
  
• Electoral College for the presidency insulated the executive from the most populous states’ influence, giving smaller states a voice The U.S. Constitution Online.
  
• Senate provided equal representation for all states, balancing large and small states’ interests The U.S. Constitution Online.
  
• Bill of Rights protected individual liberties from majority decrees, such as freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial www.liberty-lighthouse.com.
  
• Indirect election of senators (until the 17th Amendment) and lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices were meant to shield the judiciary from the passions of the mob www.sierrathread.com.
   
  

 

Why They Thought It Was a ThreatThe founders believed that popular passions—influenced by emotion, misinformation, and political pressure—could lead to rash, unjust decisions. They wanted government to be a refined and deliberate process, not a direct expression of the momentary will of the crowd legalclarity.org+1.
In short, the forefathers foresaw mob rule as a danger because they knew that without checks and balances, the majority’s will could become a tool of oppression. Their solution was a system of representative government, institutional safeguards, and constitutional limits to protect minority rights and preserve liberty.

 


 

[chr0naut]

Many answers to your questions are here: ... _ _ _ ...
Several interesting sources with it all  

Bing Search ---- "how did the forefathers forsee mob rule"

 

 

 

When I tried to find historical instances of mob rule in democratic countries, the only noted instances were brief instances of mass hysteria and small, non-governmental criminal actions of mobs.

- and all of the examples happened within the USA (the Salem Witch Trials, numerous lynching's and, of course, January 6, 2021).

Several of these occurred after the Constitution was ratified, and so the attempt to prevent them via law in the US Constitutional framework was clearly futile. It is a bit bizarre that the only country that legislated against it, has been the one most afflicted.

[govshill2]

Please exaplain how?

Based upon, well, the experience of the lasdt 230+ years of everywhere else in the world, it would create a government with more parties and independents with seats at the table, not less.


Again, how?

And is limitation of central government a bad thing? Like, really?

Tyrannical dictatorships that oppress their citizens are unlimited central government. Historically, they define what 'unlimited central government' is in practice.


Citizens aren't a mob.

Mobs can have some citizens in them, but mobs usually consist only of limited clusters of radicalized individuals.

Citizens are "the people" mentioned in your founding documents and the vast majority of the citizenry are apolitical - simply wanting peace, personal freedom, security and prosperity, protected under the law. They are neither criminal nor violent.

Only the very worst of bad guys think that they need to be protected from the good guys.


Think about that. The District of Columbia - politicians granted the power equivalent a State full of citizens, when they are already the decision makers with power to create and amend laws, with power of the purse over the nation!

It gives those currently in power a greater hold on to that power if they can also vote themselves in both their State and also their special made up district.

And think about this:

Young independents grapple with frustration over the two-party system

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party have the mandate of the masses, but they retain power - always. The corruption is evident. The system IS the corruption.


The population is forced to select one of two options that aren't the best of the best.

You are ruled from very far above by the Henry Ford adage: "They can have any colour they want, as long as it is black".

It is neither democracy, nor liberty.

Your words:  "Citizens aren't a mob.

Mobs can have some citizens in them, but mobs usually consist only of limited clusters of radicalized individuals."


Scholarly Worded definition from Merriam Webster:  

ochlocracy
noun
och·​loc·​ra·​cy ä-ˈklä-krə-sē 
: government by the mob : mob rule

OCHLOCRACY definition & meaning
 

[chr0naut]

Your words:  "Citizens aren't a mob.

Mobs can have some citizens in them, but mobs usually consist only of limited clusters of radicalized individuals."

Scholarly Worded definition from Merriam Webster:  

A word definition does not equal an example of a historical government run by an ochlocratic mob.

Generally, in practice, mobs act contrary to the law and to the government of their time and ochlocracy is where a legitimate government attempts to placate a mob, rather than following due process.

The difference between democracy and ochlocracy is that a democratic state follows its legislative, executive and verifiably measured established processes, and follows the rule of law, while an ochlocratic state ignores these in order to appease assumed (but not democratically tested) public sentiments.

For example, Brexit, though a stupid but relatively popular idea at the time, the British Parliament voted to have a public referendum on the question and the Parliament also voted to ratify the result of that referendum. So it was a democratic action, not that of pandering to an unruly ochlocratic mob.

Here's a question to ponder: Since Trump has modelled his administration on the power structures of the Italian Mafia, complete with loyalty tests, extreme sanction against alleged betrayers, and frequent illegal acts intended to maintain Trump's dominance, is it "mob" rule in that sense?

The Trump administration is also clearly an ochlocracy, in the sense of taking actions contrary to established legal process, and according to the assumed 'popular issues' of his supporters (and clearly without democratic, legal or Congressional process, assent or verification). In this case, the Electoral College has provably been shown to have no teeth at all to prevent ochlocratic mob rule - not one iota.

[govshill2]

Here comes .. .. .. .. 

Al-a  BAMA!

Supreme Court and ALL!                                                ​​​​​​​

The US Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to throw out its current rigged congressional map.
 
Alabama on Friday filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court asking the high court to allow it to throw out its current rigged congressional map.
 
Alabama’s request to toss out its racist, gerrymandered congressional map comes after the Supreme Court last month declared Louisiana’s newly-drawn Congressional map an unconstitutional gerrymander.


BREAKING: Supreme Court Clears the Way For Alabama to Throw Out Current Rigged Congressional Map – Sotomayor Fumes
 

[chr0naut]

The way our government is set up is in three parts.  Congress is elected by popular vote in each district. Our president is elected by the going through the electorial college. The supreme Court is appointed. 

The separation of powers did not originate in the USA, but way before then in Ancient Sparta, codified by King Lycurgus, as advised by the Delphic Oracle. And way back then, there were three branches too: the Senate, the Consuls and the Assemblies.

And the British that you guys broke away from, their Parliamentary system also had three branches and separation of powers, but they also had a Constitutional monarchy, so, they had four branches of government.

And all those ex-British colonies that gained independence without war, they have taken up the Westminster system that they have modified, learning from its strengths and shortcomings to make new forms of government, not frozen by a 237 years old Constitution, but by more living and dynamic systems, but still founded in history.

How (the New Zealand) government works

This is to balance out the power of the people. The  president being voted in that way counterbalances the power of the big cities.  Every state gets represented by the same number of votes as they have members in Congress.

Let's watch a couple of videos about this shall we.

[Video: https://youtu.be/pKSGyiT-o3o]

[Video: https://youtu.be/gc8e5Pm1_bM]

Now in practice, the president is almost always the highest count in the total votes of the people if they were counted that way. I think that did not happen two times in 250 years.

Your current administration is trying to implement Unitary Executive Authority, which Trump has misunderstood to mean that he should dismantle the authority of the other branches. But the concept was Constitutionally dubious, anyway.

The Myth of the Unitary Executive: Untethered from the Constitution and Out of Touch with Founding-era History - Harvard Law Review.

[BeyondKnowledge]

The separation of powers did not originate in the USA, but way before then in Ancient Sparta, codified by King Lycurgus, as advised by the Delphic Oracle. And way back then, there were three branches too: the Senate, the Consuls and the Assemblies.

And the British that you guys broke away from, their Parliamentary system also had three branches and separation of powers, but they also had a Constitutional monarchy, so, they had four branches of government.

And all those ex-British colonies that gained independence without war, they have taken up the Westminster system that they have modified, learning from its strengths and shortcomings to make new forms of government, not frozen by a 237 years old Constitution, but by more living and dynamic systems, but still founded in history.

How (the New Zealand) government works


Your current administration is trying to implement Unitary Executive Authority, which Trump has misunderstood to mean that he should dismantle the authority of the other branches. But the concept was Constitutionally dubious, anyway.

The Myth of the Unitary Executive: Untethered from the Constitution and Out of Touch with Founding-era History - Harvard Law Review.

Think you for providing some of the back story of the ideas behind several world governments. Including the rantings of a woman that was under the affects of toxic gas, the Delphic Orical. That has been proven. I have nothing against her being a woman but she was under chemical influences at the time.  

You value the openion of Harvard even with their recent history?  Many law agencies won't hire their graduattes. Trump knows what he is doing with this. Also none of it would be allowed if only Trump wanted it done. He is not a monarch. The laws are now being followed not changed. Straightened out if you will, after being severely bent by recent governmental decisions.

What is this 237 years you are referring to exactly? Our constitution was amended in 1992. That is how we change it. You really need to keep up with current events of what you bring up.